Kailash Kumar Agarwal @ Kailash Kumar Agrawal, aged about 59 yrs, s/o Late Jagdish Prasad, R/o Holding No.18, Golmuri Market, P.O. & P.S.-Golmuri, Town-Jamshedpur, Dist: East Singhbhum, Jharkhand.

The Union of India through Central Bureau of Investigation. ... ... Opp. Party

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUJIT NARAYAN PRASAD

For the Petitioner : Mr. Mahesh Tewari, Advocate For the Opp. Party-CBI : Mr. Deepak Kumar Bharti, Advocate

C.A.V. on 02.05.2025 Pronounced on 09/05/2025

1. The instant criminal miscellaneous petition has been preferred for quashing of entire criminal proceedings in relation to the petitioner in connection with CBI, EOW, Ranchi case being F.I.R. No. RC0932014S0005 dated 02.05.2014 registered under Sections 120(B) r/w Sections 406 / 420 / 467 / 468 & 471 of the I.P.C. and subsequently Sections 13(2) r/w Section 13(1) (c) & (d) of P.C. Act were added in the charge sheet pending in the court of Learned Special Judge, C.B.I. Ranchi in R.C.05(S)/2014-EOW-R. Further, petitioner has also prayed for quashing of order dated 25.09.2019 passed by learned Special Judge, C.B.I., Ranchi in R.C. 05 (S)/2014-EOW-R whereby and whereunder the discharge application filed by the petitioner has been rejected by the learned court.

2025:JHHC:14097 Prayer has also been made for quashing of order dated 03.01.2020 passed by learned Special Judge, C.B.I., Ranchi in R.C.5(S)/2014-EOW-R whereby and whereunder charges have been framed against the petitioner u/s 120(B) r/w Sections 420 / 467 & 471 IPC and section 13(2) r/w section 13(1) (c) & (d) of Prevention of corruption Act. Factual Matrix

2. The brief facts of the case as mentioned in the instant petition, which are required to be enumerated read hereunder as :-

3. The CBI, after conducting investigation, has submitted charge sheet against the petitioner and others u/s 120B r/w 420, 467 and 471 IPC & section 13(2) r/w 13(1)(c) & (d) of the P.C. Act . Accordingly, cognizance of the offence has been taken against the petitioner and others.

4. Consequently, the application for discharge being Misc. Criminal Application no. 1003/2019 has been filed by the petitioner by taking the ground that petitioner is not liable/responsible to verify the originality/genuineness of the documents before the Registry Office/Circle Office and it was not the duty of the petitioner to verify the same.

5. Per contra learned counsel appearing for the CBI had submitted that petitioner was empanelled advocate of 3 2025:JHHC:14097 the bank and in that capacity he submitted his report about conducting the legal investigation of the title and made a search of records in the Registration Office thereby induced the bank to sanction the credit facility to co- accused borrower.

6. Taking in to consideration the aforesaid submission of the parties, the learned Special Judge, CBI, Ranchi has dismissed the said application vide order dated 25/09/19 and directed the petitioner to remain physically present on the date fixed for charge.

7. Accordingly, vide order dated 05.11.2019 charges under Sections 120B r/w 420, 467 and 471 IPC & Section 13(2) r/w 13(1)(c) & (d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act have been framed against the present petitioner.

8. The present petition has filed under Section 482 Criminal Procedure Code for quashing of the entire criminal proceeding as well as order dated 25.09.2019 and 05.11.2019 by which discharge application has been dismissed and charge have been framed respectively against the present petitioner.

Submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner:

2025:JHHC:14097

10. learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner himself is a counsel and merely because he has given an opinion without their being any allegation of being in league with the other accused persons involved in criminal conspiracy, the proceedings against the petitioner deserves to be quashed and set aside.

11. It has also been contended that the opinion of the petitioner was based upon the documents provided to him by the bank itself and he had no reasons to assume that any of these documents might be forged/false.

12. Learned Counsel has also referred to Cr. Rev. No. 406 of 2018 and Cr. M.P. No. 1719 of 2022 in which present petitioner was the petitioner in the said cases and the cases against the petitioner had come to a close. It has also been submitted that against the order passed in Cr. Rev. No. 406 of 2018; the CBI had moved the Hon. Supreme Court in Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No. 4710 of 2022, which was dismissed on 07.11.2022.

13. In view of the aforesaid, he submits that all the cases were related to giving a report by the petitioner with respect to some fake property and their being absence of criminal conspiracy against the petitioner, the present case also has to be treated similarly and the entire proceedings against the petitioner deserves to be quashed. 5

2025:JHHC:14097

14. Learned counsel for the petitioner by referring to the judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Central Bureau of Investigation vs. K. Narayan Rao (2012) 9 SCC 512, has submitted that similar matter was before the Hon'ble Apex Court wherein the criminal case was quashed after taking note of the contents of the Title Inspection Report (TIR).

15. Learned counsel for the petitioner, based upon the aforesaid premise, has submitted that the petitioner is innocent and having no criminality as has been alleged in the instant cases, as such, the entire criminal proceeding in R.C.05(S)/2014-EOW-R pending under Sections 120B read with Sections 420 , 467 , 468 and 471 of IPC and Section 13(2) read with 13(1) (c)(d) of Prevention of Corruption Act including the order dated 25.09.2019 by which application for discharge has been dismissed and also order framing charge dated 05.11.2019 under Sections 120B read with 420, 467, 468 and 471 IPC and Section 13(2) read with 13(1)(c)(d) of Prevention of Corruption Act , are fit to be quashed and set aside.

Submission of the learned counsel for the respondent:

16. While on the other hand, learned counsel for CBI has submitted that no interference is required by this Court as the Special Judge has fully applied his mind before rejecting the discharge application and from perusal of the 6 2025:JHHC:14097 materials collected during investigation, it is apparent that the petitioner-accused is fully involved in the alleged commission of crime.

17. The learned counsel for the respondent has further submitted that without proper verification the opinion was given and spot verification was not made by the petitioner and in view of that the C.B.I. found the allegations against the petitioner true and in view of that criminality is made out and the learned court has rightly not discharged the petitioner and framed charge against the petitioner.

18. It has been submitted that the Bank had relied upon the opinion of the petitioner and thereafter, had sanctioned a huge cash credit and all the documents were handed over to the petitioner, but the petitioner did not verify the genuineness of the said documents, rather gave his opinion on the basis of the documents, which were forged and fabricated.

19. He further submits that if the petitioner would have been diligent and performed his duty with care and caution, this loss could have been avoided and as such since the petitioner did not perform his duty in proper manner nor made any inspection of the original records, it can be inferred that he was also a part of the conspiracy.

20. Based upon the aforesaid premise the learned counsel for C.B.I. submits that there is sufficient material 7 2025:JHHC:14097 on record for constituting prima facie case against the petitioner which may not be quashed.

21. This Court has heard the rival submissions advanced on behalf of the learned counsel for the parties and perused the entire material available on record including the charge-sheet.

22. Before adverting into facts of the instant case it will be profitable to discuss herein the ambit and scope of inherent jurisdiction of the Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C.

23. The powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. are the exception and not the rule. Under this section, the High Court has inherent powers to make such orders as may be necessary to give effect to any order under the Code or to prevent the abuse of process of any court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice. But the expressions "abuse of process of law" or "to secure the ends of justice" do not confer unlimited jurisdiction on the High Court and the alleged abuse of process of law or the ends of justice could only be secured in accordance with law, including procedural law and not otherwise. Reference in this regard may be taken from the judgment as rendered by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Dhruvaram Murlidhar Sonar v. State of Maharashtra , (2019) 18 SCC 191. 8

2025:JHHC:14097

24. It is settled proposition of law that to invoke its inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 CrPC the High Court has to be fully satisfied that the material produced by the accused is such that would lead to the conclusion that his/their defence is based on sound, reasonable, and indubitable facts; the material produced is such as would rule out and displace the assertions contained in the charges levelled against the accused; and the material produced is such as would clearly reject and overrule the veracity of the allegations contained in the accusations levelled by the prosecution/complainant. Reference in this regard may be taken by the judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Rajiv Thapar and Others v. Madan Lal Kapoor [(2013) 3 SCC 330] which reads as under:

[emphasis added]

25. In State of Orissa v. Debendra Nath Padhi [(2005) 1 SCC 568] the powers of the High Court under Section 482, Cr. P.C. and Article 226 of the Constitution of India were highlighted and the Hon'ble Apex Court observed that:

[emphasis added]

26. In Rukmini Narvekar v. Vijaya Satardekar [(2008) 14 SCC 1], the Hon'ble Apex Court has observed that the width of the powers of the High Court under Section 482, Cr. P.C. and under Article 226 of the Constitution of India are unlimited, that the High Court could make such orders as may be necessary to prevent abuse of the process of any Court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice. In a concurring order passed in the very same case, it was observed in addition that in exercising jurisdiction under Section 482, Cr. P.C., the High Court is free to consider even material that may be produced on behalf of the accused to arrive at a decision whether charge as framed could be maintained.

27. In Anand Kumar Mohatta v. State (NCT of Delhi), Department of Home [(2019) 11 SCC 706], referring to the provisions of Section 482, Cr. P.C., the Hon'ble Apex Court held as follows:

28. Thus, it is settled position in the exercise of this wholesome power, the High Court is entitled to quash a proceeding if it comes to the conclusion that allowing the proceeding to continue would be an abuse of the process of the Court or that the ends of justice require that the proceeding ought to be quashed. The saving of the High Court's inherent powers, both in civil and criminal matters, is designed to achieve a salutary public purpose which is that a court proceeding ought not to be permitted to degenerate into a weapon of harassment or persecution. In a criminal case, the veiled object behind a lame prosecution, the very nature of the material on which the structure of the prosecution rests and the like would justify the High Court in quashing the proceeding in the interest of justice.

2025:JHHC:14097

29. As can be gathered from the above, Section 482 Cr. P.C. recognizes the inherent powers of the High Court to quash initiation of prosecution against the accused to pass such orders as may be considered necessary to give effect to any order under the Cr. P.C. or to prevent abuse of the process of any court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice. It is a statutory power vested in the High Court to quash such criminal proceedings that would dislodge the charges levelled against the accused and based on the material produced, lead to a firm opinion that the assertions contained in the charges levelled by the prosecution deserve to be overruled.

30. While exercising the powers vested in the High Court under Section 482, Cr. P.C., whether at the stage of issuing process or at the stage of committal or even at the stage of framing of charges, which are all stages that are prior to commencement of the actual trial, the test to be applied is that the Court must be fully satisfied that the material produced by the accused would lead to a conclusion that their defence is based on sound, reasonable and indubitable facts. The material relied on by the accused should also be such that would persuade a reasonable person to dismiss the accusations levelled against them as false.

2025:JHHC:14097

31. In the backdrop of the aforesaid settled proposition of law this Court is now adverting to the fact of the case in order to adjudicate the claim of the petitioner that he has no role in the alleged commission of crime.

32. It appears from the record that the prosecution case was registered on the basis of complaint received vide letter dated 30.04.2014 from Vimal Kumar Sharma, Chief Manager, Punjab National Bank, Circle Office, Bagroy Market, Main Road, Ranchi alleging therein criminal conspiracy and cheating committed by the accused borrowers Amrendra Kumar Singh and Rakesh Kapoor (both partners of M/s KSS Infrastructure, Ranchi) who obtained Cash Credit Limit of Rs 5 crores and Bank Guarantee limit of Rs. 5 crores from Punjab National Bank, Sakchi Branch, Jamshedpur, against the hypothecation of primary security i.e. stocks/book debts by depositing fake and fabricated documents.

33. For obtaining the said CC Limit and Bank Guarantee, Ravi Gupta @ Ravin Gupta and Narendra Kumar Srivastava stood as guarantor and created equitable mortgage by depositing fake and fabricated sale deeds and it was further alleged that Amrendra Kumar Singh, Rakesh Kapoor, Ravi Gupta @ Ravin Gupta & Narendra Kumar Srivastava in connivance with some other unknown 14 2025:JHHC:14097 persons, cheated Punjab National Bank to the tune of Rs. 4.74 crores (approx.).

34. Complicity of the present partitioner it is alleged through the charge sheet that the petitioner was responsible for submitting his report regarding the property offered as security and mentioned in sale deed no. 4711 dated 07/05/87. It was alleged that the petitioner has conducted legal investigation of title and made a report that Mr. Ravi Gupta @ Ravin Gupta has a clear, valid and marketable title over the property which was being offered as security and Mr. Ravin Gupta is competent to create mortgage.

35. It was further alleged that the petitioner without conducting any verification submitted false report certifying the title of the land in favour of the guarantor and borrower and thereby induced the bank to sanction the credit facility in favour of borrowers leaving no scope for forfeature or confiscation in case, the loan turns into NPA.

36. From record it appears the petitioner is not named in the FIR but his name came up during investigation of this case by CBI. After investigation CBI has submitted charge sheet against the petitioner and others u/s 120B r/w 420, 467 and 471 IPC & section 13(2) r/w 13(1)(c) & (d) accordingly cognizance of offence has been taken. 15

2025:JHHC:14097

37. Consequently, the application for discharge being Misc. Criminal Application no. 1003/2019 has been filed by the petitioner but the learned Spl. Judge, CBI, Ranchi had dismissed the said application vide order dated 25/09/19 and directed to petitioner to present physically on the date fixed for charge.

38. Accordingly, vide order dated 05.11.2019 charges under Sections 120B r/w 420, 467 and 471 IPC & section 13(2) r/w 13(1)(c) & (d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act has been framed against the present petitioner.

39. The present petition has filed under Section 482 Criminal Procedure Code for quashing of the entire criminal proceeding as well as order dated 25.09.2019 and 05.11.2019 by which discharge application has been dismissed and charge have been framed respectively against the present petitioner.

40. It needs to refer herein that the role of each of the accused in the alleged commission of crime has been specifically mentioned in the charge sheet. Counsel for the CBI also relies on the said document, which is annexed with the petition the brief. For ready reference the same is being quoted as under:

2025:JHHC:14097 He did not verify the immovable property offered as collateral security at the Circle Office, Chandil. He, in criminal conspiracy with borrowers, gave certificate in Special Report on Title that borrower Mr. Azaz Khan has clear, valid and marketable title over the property and he is competent to create the mortgage. He concealed the fact that the land mentioned under the sale deed no. 3747, dated 07.07.2008 is covered under the C.N.T Act and the registration of aforesaid deed took place by the virtue of permission for sale granted by the Ld. DC Saraikela in T.A. Miscellaneous Case No. 13/2008-09 order dated 09.05.2008 u/s 49 (2) of C. N. T. Act.

41. It is thus evident from the aforementioned paragraph that the petitioner, is a panel lawyer of the Bank. He has been implicated in this case on the basis of legal opinion given by him, which is alleged to be based on false and fabricated documents. Except that nothing hs come against the appellant which he was connived with the other accused persons.

42. In this context, it is pertinent to reiterate that conspiracy is not an open affair, therefore, the prosecution has to rely upon evidence pertaining to the acts of various parties to prove such an agreement of conspiracy on the basis of circumstantial evidence which can be inferred by necessary implication.

43. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in plethora of decisions has observed that for an offence punishable under Section 120B of the IPC, the prosecution need not necessarily prove 17 2025:JHHC:14097 that the propagators expressly agree to do or carried to be done an illegal act and such agreement may be proved by necessary implication to be determined from the circumstantial evidence brought on record.

44. Further, Offence of criminal conspiracy is complete even though there is no agreement as to the means by which the purpose is to be accomplished. It is the unlawful agreement, which is the gravamen of the crime of conspiracy. The unlawful agreement which amounts to a conspiracy need not be formal or express, but may be inherent in and inferred from the circumstances, especially declarations, acts and conduct of the conspirators. Reference in this regard may be taken from the judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of State of T.N. through Superintendent of Police CBI/SIT Petitioner v. Nalini and others; (1999) 5 SCC 253.

45. In Bhagwan Swarup Lal Bishan Lal v. State of Maharashtra (AIR 1965 SC 682) a three-Judge Bench of the Apex Court held that the offence of conspiracy can be established either by direct evidence or by circumstantial evidence and the section will come into play only when the Court is satisfied that there is reasonable ground to believe that two or more persons have conspired to commit an offence or an actionable wrong, that is to say, there should 18 2025:JHHC:14097 be prima facie evidence that a person was a party to that conspiracy.

46. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of State of M.P. v. Sheetla Sahai (2009) 8 SCC 617 has held as follows:--

47. Thus, from the aforesaid settled proposition of law that offence of conspiracy can be established either by direct evidence or by circumstantial evidence but the Section 120-B of the Indian Penal Code will come into play only when the Court is satisfied that there is reasonable ground to believe that two or more persons have conspired to commit an offence or an actionable wrong.

48. Applying the aforesaid underlying principle in the fact of instant case, it is evident that present petitioner being an empaneled lawyer and that he has given legal opinion about the property which is alleged to be based on false and fabricated documents. Save and except that nothing has come against the petitioner. Further, the prosecution is not able to put forth any cogent evidence 19 2025:JHHC:14097 that the present petitioner has connived with the other accused persons.

49. Thus, it is evident that present petitioner had given only his legal opinion based upon the document as provided by the Bank to him which he was bound to give being an empaneled lawyer. Further nothing has come on the record that in lieu of giving his opinion he had taken any illegal gratification which is necessarily required for implication of Section 13 of the prevention of corruption Act.

50. It needs to refer herein that the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Central Bureau of Investigation v. K. Narayana Rao , reported in (2012) 9 SCC 512, has held that the criminal liability against an advocate, who gives an opinion, arises only when the lawyer was an active participant in a plan to defraud the Bank and Criminal offence has to be committed by the lawyer himself. For ready reference the Para-30 & 31 of the aforesaid judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court, is being quoted as under:

51. Further it needs to refer herein that the Hon'ble Apex Court in the aforesaid judgment, has discussed at length that what are the ingredients of the offence of criminal conspiracy and what type of act would attract criminal conspiracy. For ready reference the relevant paragraph is being quoted herein below: -

52. Thus, it is evident from the ratio of the aforesaid judgment that the liability against an opining advocate arises only when the lawyer was an active participant in a plan to defraud the Bank.

53. Taking in to consideration the ratio of the aforesaid judgment and the role of the petitioner which has been referred hereinabove this Court is of the considered view that find that the prosecution has put forth any evidence in regarding the role of the petitioner in aiding the conspiracy to defraud the Bank.

54. At this juncture it may be stated that the present petitioner has not performed his duties diligently and was negligent in his work and except that nothing is available on record which suggests that he had taken active part and there was meeting of minds between this petitioner and other co-accused.

55. It needs to refer herein that in Cr. Rev. No. 406 of 2018 and Cr. M.P. No. 1719 of 2022 also filed by the 22 2025:JHHC:14097 present petitioner where there was exactly similar allegation against him had come to a close and against the order passed in Cr. Rev. No. 406 of 2018; the CBI had moved before Hon'ble Supreme Court in Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No. 4710 of 2022, which was also dismissed on 07.11.2022.

56. On the basis of the discussion made hereinabove this Court is of the considered view that the instant petition deserves to be allowed.

57. Accordingly, the entire criminal proceedings in relation to the petitioner in connection with CBI, EOW, Ranchi case being F.I.R. No. RC0932014S0005 (R.C.05(S)/2014-EOW-R) is quashed and set aside.

58. Accordingly, the present petition stands allowed.

(Sujit Narayan Prasad, J.) A.F.R. Birendra/ 23