ORDER The petitioner/ A-2 is accused of offences punishable under Sections 120-B, 419, 420, 468,471 I.P.C. A-2 is a legal professional and is panel advocate of Bank of India, Saroornagar Branch, Hyderabad. Subject matter of the crime is sanctioning of 10 housing loans amounting to total sum of Rs. 75,00,000/- by the said bank based on false and forged documents for purchase of flats constructed by B.R. Constructions. It is alleged that in pursuance of the conspiracy of all the accused to cheat the bank, fabricated documents were submitted to the bank styling them as genuine documents and that the entire loan amounts of Rs. 75,00,000/- were credited into fictitious account opened by the impostor builder V.Rama Rao. It is alleged that the bank officials abused their official positions as public servants and deliberately violated all the guidelines and procedures laid down by the bank. Gravemen of the charge against A-2 is that as bank's panel advocate, he submitted legal opinion wherein he mentioned that he had examined original title deeds and that the same were in order. It is also stated by A-2 in his opinion that he conducted search at the office of Sub Registrar, Hyderabad East and obtained encumbrance certificate for the period from the year 1965 to the year 1980. It is further alleged that A-2 deliberately did not obtain encumbrance certificate from the office of Sub-Registrar, Uppal under whose jurisdiction the property is located now and that he also did not mention anything in the report about visiting the site. Ultimately, A-2 is alleged to have not followed the bank's circular No.97/66, dt.12.08.2003 as per which the panel advocate is supposed to visit the Sub Registrar's office concerned and conduct thorough search before giving legal opinion. 2. It is contended by the senior counsel appearing for the petitioner/A-2 that the bank gave a complaint against the petitioner to the Bar Council of the State of Andhra Pradesh against the petitioner/ A-?- alleging professional misconduct on his part in this regard and that disciplinary committee of the State Bar Council after enquiry in complaint case No.115 of 2006 dropped action against the petitioner as the complaint did not disclose prima facie case against him for taking any action for the alleged professional misconduct by the petitioner. It is therefore contended that prosecution of A-2 who is a legal professional is wholly unwarranted by law for the alleged violation of the bank circular No.97/66, dt.12.08.2003. Though it is contended that A-2 was not aware of the bank circular No.97/66, dt.12.08.2003 and that it was not brought to his notice by the bank, the said contentions are based on factual disputes which this Court cannot entertain and resolve in this petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. 3. It is not case of the respondent/Central Bureau of Investigation (C.B.I) that the bank circular No.97/66, dt.12.08.2003 is an enforceable law by itself. It is not the prosecution case that A-2 violated any norms prescribed by any law for the time being in force. Any circular issued by Bank of India prescribing guidelines to the panel advocates, would be nothing more than internal instructions between the bank management and its panel advocates. It is nobody's case that the said circular was issued by the bank in exercise of any statutory powers vested in the bank by virtue d any provisions in any enactment passed by the State Legislature or the Parliament. In the absence of any enforceability of the circular in any Court of law against any person including a panel advocate, any violation of guidelines issued in that circular would not attract legal liability on A-2 under any criminal law. Circular No.97/66, dt.12.08.2003 is only a routine circular by Head Office of Bank of India to all the branches of the Bank. Second part of the said circular relating to precautions for prevention of frauds, directs the branches to take proper precautions so that no instance of fraud takes place. It listed some of the precautions which need to be taken. They include: "vi) The search and title report is a very important document. It should satisfy atleast the following requirements:- a) a) It should be obtained from an advocate on bank's approved panel of advocates. b) b) It should be addressed to the branch of the bank where the loan is to be granted. c) c) It should trace the title for the preceding 30 years. d) d) The documents of the title of the property should be examined by the bank's lawyer. b) b) It should be addressed to the branch of the bank where the loan is to be granted. c) c) It should trace the title for the preceding 30 years. d) d) The documents of the title of the property should be examined by the bank's lawyer. He should take search in the appropriate records of the Sub-Registrar of Assurances and Reenue and Municipal records upto as near the date of creation of security in the Bank's favour as possible." The said circular was addressed to all branches of the bank and was not addressed to panel advocates of the bank/branch. In any event, the said circular casts burden on the branch head to ensure compliance of the said circular including precautions mentioned therein. The duty is on the branch head to comply with the said circular and to see that the panel advocate fulfils the norms stated therein. In this case, A-2 obtained encumbrance certificate for the property for the period from the year 1965 to the year 1980 from office of Sub-Registrar, Hyderabad East. If the search report based on search in office of Sub-Registrar, Hyderabad East and encumbrance certificate of 1965-1988 was not sufficient and did not satisfy circular precautions, then branch head of the bank should have directed the panel advocate to make further search for the subsequent period and to obtain further encumbrance certificate for the subsequent period from the appropriate Sub-Registrar's office. Instead, the bank officials have chosen to sanction the loans on the basis of the above search report and encumbrance certificate given by A-2. 4. It is most unfortunate to note that legal, professionals undertake the activity of investigating into genuineness of the documents/title deeds and making search of records and registers in registration offices, municipal offices and revenue offices. It is for the party who seeks loan from the bank to furnish all the relevant title deeds, encumbrance certificates and extracts of relevant registers from the registration office, municipal office and revenue office. Thereupon, it should be duty of the bank officials and more particularly Branch head and field officers of the bank to make search of the said offices to find outgenuineness of the above documents and extracts from the respective offices and to submit search report on genuinity of the documents and records submitted by the party. Thereupon, it should be duty of the bank officials and more particularly Branch head and field officers of the bank to make search of the said offices to find outgenuineness of the above documents and extracts from the respective offices and to submit search report on genuinity of the documents and records submitted by the party. It is only thereupon the legal professional should undertake legal work by way of scrutinising the records and documents and also search report of the field officer of the bank and finally to give legal opinion on all the said documents and report. Instead, the bank's circular made duty of the panel advocate multifarious by casting duty on him to do every manual work which the party or the bank staff/officer should undertake. It is high time that that legal professionals should dissociate themselves from the said manual and clerical activity of the bank and restrict themselves to pure legal work. Otherwise, there is every possibility of the legal profession losing its dignity and nobility. It is high time for the Bar Council of India as well as the Bar Council of the State of Andhra Pradesh to take up the issue in order to preserve dignity of the legal profession. 5. This Court had earlier occasions dealing with similar criminal petitions relating to other cases and other advocates and this Court is consistent in holding that even if there are any deviations or non-compliance of any banks' circulars in this regard, such instances would not lead to criminal liability for the above offences (un-reported orders of this Court in Crl.P.No.1037 of 2007, dt.30.03.2007, Crl.P.No.2347 of 2008, dt.09.07.2010, Crl.P.No.471 of 2009, dt.21.10.2010 and Crl.P.No.472 of 2009, dt.21.10.2010). It is not the prosecution case that apart from violation of guidelines in Bank circular by A-2 as panel advocate, there is any more meeting of minds or meeting of the accused to attract criminal conspiracy punishable under Section 120-B I.P.C. Assuming for a moment for the sake of argument that there was professional negligence on the part of A-2 in giving legal opinion, it is not the prosecution case that it was a culpable negligence. Therefore, continuation of prosecution proceedings in the lower Court against A-2 would amount to abuse of process of law, as the prosecution is not able to make out prima facie case against A-2 for the above offences mentioned in the charge sheet. 6. In the result, the Criminal Petition is allowed quashing proceedings in c.c. No.246 of 2008 on the file of XIV Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad in so far as the petitioner/ A-2 is concerned. The Registrar is directed to communicate copy of this order to Secretary, the Bar Council of India, New Delhi and Secretary, the Bar Council of the State of Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad.