Date of reserved for orders : 19-08-2026 Date of pronouncement : 28-09-2026 Date of uploading : 28-09-2026 APHC010510692023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3604] MONDAY, THE 28th DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2026 PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE SUNITHA GANDHAM CRIMINAL PETITION NO: 7753 OF 2023 Between: SMT MATETI SANTHA, W/O ABSV RANGA RAO, AGED 49 YRS OCC.ADVOCATE , FLAT NO.404 , RAM MANAS APARTMENT LAWSONSBAY COLONY, VISAKHAPATNAM. ( IN CHARGE SHEET THE PETITIONER NAME SHOWN AS A-8 BUT THE COURT BELOW TAKEN AS A-7 AS PER E-COURT CASE STATUS ) ...PETITIONER/ACCUSED AND 1. THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH, REP., BYITS PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT AT AMARAVATHI. 2. SRI N V RAJESWARA RAO, S/O NCH SOMESWARA RAO, AGED 54 YRSS FLAT NO.402, MUNI MAHANI TOWERS, ANNAPURNA NAGAR MALKAPURAM, VISAKHAPATNAM. ...RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT(S): Petition under Section 437/438/439/482 of Cr.P.C and 528 of BNSS praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the High Court May be pleased to pass an Order to Quash the Impugned Proceedings in C.C.No. 105/2020 on the file of III Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate Court at Gajuwaka, Visakhapatnam City as against the petitioner/A-7 Mateti Santha in the interest of the justice and pass such IA NO: 1 OF 2023 Petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C and 528 of BNSS praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the High Court may be pleased May be pleased to pass an Order to dispense the Impugned Proceedings in C.C.No. 105/2020 on the file of III Additional Chief 2 SUN, J Crlp_7753_2023 Metropolitan Magistrate Court at Gajuwaka, Visakhapatnam City as against the petitioner/A-7 Mateti Santha in the interest of the justice and pass such IA NO: 2 OF 2023 Petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C and 528 of BNSS praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the High Court may be pleased may be pleased to pass an order to Stay of all further proceedings including appearance of the petitioner/A-7 i.e., Mateti Santha on the file Chief Metropolitan Magistrate Court at Gajuwaka, Visakhapatnam city pending disposal of the main Criminal petition in the interest of Justice and pass such IA NO: 1 OF 2025 Petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C and 528 of BNSS praying that in the circumstances stated in the Memorandum of Grounds of Criminal Petition, the High Court may be pleased may be pleased to extend the interim stay order passed by this Hon'ble Court in the above Criminal Petition No.7753/2023 Dt 23/12/2024 until further orders in the interest of justice and to pass Counsel for the Petitioner/accused: 1. R SIVA SAI SWARUP Counsel for the Respondent/complainant(S): 1. PUBLIC PROSECUTOR (AP) The Court made the following: 3 SUN, J Crlp_7753_2023 THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE SUNITHA GANDHAM CRIMINAL PETITION No: 7753 of 2023 ORDER: This Criminal Petition is filed by the petitioner/ accused No.7, Mateti Santha, under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, to quash the proceedings in C.C.No.105 of 2020 on the file of the III Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Gajuwaka. 2. The case of the petitioner, in brief, is that she is a practising Advocate at Visakhapatnam and has been on the panel of the Central Bank of India, Gandhinagaram, Malkapuram, Visakhapatnam. The said Central Bank of India for about three decades. According to her, she has been rendering legal services to the Bank without any adverse remark. Basing on a report lodged by the 2nd respondent/ Senior Branch Manager, Central Bank of India, Crime No.104 of 2014 of Malkapuram Police Station, Visakhapatnam, was initially registered against Accused Nos.1 to 5. During the course of investigation, the petitioner was arrayed as Accused No.7 on the allegation that she had given a legal opinion on the basis of fabricated documents for obtaining a loan. 3. It is the further case of the petitioner that she had furnished her legal opinion/Title Report on the basis of photocopies of the documents supplied by the Central Bank of India and that there was no occasion for her to verify the genuineness of the original documents. She contends that the allegations against her are vague and do not disclose any connection between her and the alleged acts of the other accused. 4. Heard Sri R.Siva Swai Swarup, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Assistant Public Prosecutor. 5. Admittedly, on the report of the 2nd respondent/Senior Branch Manager, Central Bank of India, Crime No.104 of 2014 was initially registered for the 4 SUN, J Crlp_7753_2023 offences punishable under Sections 420, 468 and 471 read with Sections 34 of the Indian Penal Code against Accused Nos.1 to 5. During the course of investigation, the petitioner was arrayed as Accused No.7 on the allegation that, without verifying the genuineness of the documents, she had given a false report. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner had examined the photocopies of the documents furnished by the Bank and, in the course of her professional duties, had given her legal opinion. It was further submitted that the petitioner had been rendering legal services to the Bank since several years and that there is no material to show that she had conspired with the other accused or had any dishonest intention. 7. Per contra, learned Assistant Public Prosecutor submitted that, as a Panel Advocate, the petitioner was required to verify and cross-check the documents furnished to the Bank and that the very purpose of appointing a Panel Advocate is to safeguard the interests of the Bank by verifying the genuineness of the documents. 8. Learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon the judgments of the High Court of Calcutta in Bhaskar Banerjee vs Central Bureau of Investigation and another1 wherein Hon’ble Court has followed the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Central Bureau of Investigation, Hyderabad v. K. Narayana Rao2, and Surendra Nath Pandey and another v. State of Bihar and another3. 9. Admittedly, no crime was initially registered against the petitioner/ accused No.7. She was arrayed as an accused only during the course of investigation. The allegation that, without verifying the documents, she conspired with the other accused, by itself, cannot be sufficient to sustain the 1 CRP 1920 of 2014 2 (2012) 9 SCC 512 3 (2020) 18 SCC 730 5 SUN, J Crlp_7753_2023 criminal proceedings unless there is some material indicating her involvement and the requisite criminal intent. Mere negligence or an error in professional opinion, without material showing dishonest or fraudulent participation, would not by itself establish the ingredients of the offences alleged. 10. It is well settled that, while exercising jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the High Court ordinarily proceeds on the basis of the allegations in the complaint/FIR and the material accompanying it and does not conduct a detailed enquiry into the correctness or genuineness of those allegations. However, where the allegations, even if taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety, do not constitute the alleged offence or where continuation of the criminal proceedings would amount to an abuse of the process of law, the inherent jurisdiction can be exercised to secure the ends of justice. 11. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in State of Haryana and Others v. Bhajan Lal and Others4, has illustrated the categories of cases in which the inherent jurisdiction may be exercised. Inter alia, such jurisdiction may be invoked where the allegations, even if taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety, do not prima facie constitute an offence or make out a case against the accused; where the uncontroverted allegations and the material collected in support thereof do not disclose the commission of an offence; or where continuation of the proceedings would otherwise amount to an abuse of the process of the Court. 12. In the present case, the material placed before this Court does not disclose any positive act on the part of the petitioner connecting her with the alleged fabrication of documents or the conspiracy attributed to the other accused. The petitioner was not an accused at the inception of the crime and was subsequently implicated principally on the allegation that she had furnished a legal opinion without verifying the genuineness of the documents. 4 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335 6 SUN, J Crlp_7753_2023 The record, as placed before this Court, does not disclose material showing that she knowingly participated in the alleged fabrication, had knowledge of the alleged fraud, or shared a dishonest intention with the other accused. 13. Even assuming, for the purpose of this petition, that the documents relied upon by the petitioner cannot be examined in detail in exercise of jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code, the remaining allegations and material do not, in the absence of specific material demonstrating her criminal involvement, disclose the ingredients necessary to proceed against her for the offences alleged. Continuation of the proceedings against the petitioner in such circumstances would therefore serve no useful purpose and would amount to an abuse of the process of law. 14. This Court is also conscious that the inherent power under Section 482 of the Code is extraordinary and has to be exercised sparingly and with due caution. At the same time, where the allegations and the material collected during investigation do not disclose the requisite criminality on the part of the accused, permitting the prosecution to continue merely on the basis of her professional role as a Panel Advocate would not advance the cause of justice. 15. In Central Bureau of Investigation, Hyderabad (supra), the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that mere negligence, improper advice, or a wrong legal opinion given by an advocate, by itself, does not constitute criminal conspiracy or abetment. To fasten criminal liability upon an advocate, there must be material showing his participation in an agreement to commit an illegal act or that he knowingly aided or abetted the commission of the offence. Further, in Surendra Nath Pandey and another (supra), the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that mere bald and omnibus allegations against an advocate, without any specific allegation or tangible material demonstrating his participation in the alleged conspiracy, are insufficient to sustain criminal prosecution. In the absence of a specific link connecting the advocate with the principal offenders or material showing that he knowingly aided or participated in the commission 7 SUN, J Crlp_7753_2023 of the offence, continuation of the criminal proceedings would amount to an abuse of the process of the Court. 16. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and the principles laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, this Court is of the considered view that the material on record does not disclose the requisite criminal intention or participation on the part of the petitioner/ accused No.7. The allegation that she furnished a legal opinion on the basis of the documents supplied to her, without more, is insufficient to sustain the criminal proceedings against her. 17. In the result, this Criminal Petition is allowed, and the proceedings against the petitioner/ accused No.7 in C.C.No.105 of 2020 on the file of the III Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Gajuwaka, of the offences punishable under Sections 420, 468 and 471 read with Section 34 IPC, are hereby quashed. As a sequel thereto, all pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed. There shall be no order as to costs. ____________________ SUNITHA GANDHAM, J 28-09-2026 knl