2015 (8) TMI 1533 - SC - Indian Laws

Conspiracy - Furnishing of false Search Report/NEC/legal opinion by panel advocates - intent to cheat the bank - facilitate obtaining of loan by the concerned persons - HELD THAT - Taking into account the contents of the FIR, we are left with the impression that the said allegations are bald and omnibus and do not make any specific reference to the role of the appellants in any alleged conspiracy. In Central Bureau of Investigation versus K. Narayana Rao 2013 (7) TMI 588 - SUPREME COURT to which one of us (Ranjan Gogoi, J.) was a party, it has been held by this Court that a criminal prosecution on the basis of such bald and omnibus statement/allegations against the panel advocates of the Bank ought not to be allowed to proceed as the same constitute an abuse of the process of the Court and such prosecution may in all likelihood be abortive and futile. The High Court was plainly wrong in refusing to interdict the proceedings against the appellants - Appeal allowed.

Summary

Issues:
Refusal to quash criminal proceedings based on FIR allegations against panel advocates of a Bank under various sections of the Indian Penal Code.

Analysis:
The Supreme Court heard an appeal against the High Court's order refusing to quash criminal proceedings in a case involving panel advocates of a Bank accused under multiple sections of the Indian Penal Code. The High Court's decision was based on the FIR alleging that the appellants provided false reports to cheat the Bank and facilitate loans. However, the charge-sheet did not contain specific findings of the investigation. The Court noted that the allegations were general and did not specify the appellants' role in any conspiracy. Referring to a previous judgment, the Court emphasized that criminal prosecution should not proceed based on vague allegations against panel advocates, as it would be an abuse of the court process and likely futile.

The Court cited a case to highlight that a lawyer's liability arises only if actively participating in defrauding the Bank. The judgment emphasized the lawyer's loyalty to the client's interest and stated that mere disagreement with the lawyer's opinion does not warrant criminal prosecution without tangible evidence linking them to the conspiracy. The Court concluded that the High Court erred in not stopping the proceedings against the appellants. Consequently, the Supreme Court set aside the High Court's order and quashed the proceedings against two appellants in the case, highlighting the lack of concrete evidence linking them to the alleged conspiracy.

In summary, the Supreme Court allowed the appeal, emphasizing the importance of tangible evidence in criminal proceedings and the need to establish a clear link between the accused and the alleged conspiracy. The Court's decision focused on preventing the abuse of the legal process and ensuring that prosecutions are based on substantial evidence rather than vague allegations.