JUDGMENT : 1. Heard Sri Nandit K. Srivastava learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Amarjeet Singh Rakhra learned counsel appearing for the C.B.I. and also perused the record. 2. The petitioner by means of this petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has prayed for quashing of the proceedings of criminal case No.9 of 2010 under Section 120-B, 420, 467, 468, 471 IPC and Section 13(1) read with Section 13(1)(d) of Prevention of Corruption Act, arising out of crime No.RCBD 12008 E 0002, relating to police station C.B.I. pending in the court of Special Judge, Anti Corruption, West, Lucknow. 3. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner was a Panel Lawyer in various Banks including Bank of India. The petitioner being a Panel Advocate of the Bank, gave hundreds of reports but no objection was ever raised to the reports either by the Bank or any other person. The Bank after conducting internal investigation, lodged an FIR on 09.07.2008 against several persons including the petitioner alleging therein that Sudhir Kumar Jain and Mrs. Anita Jain defrauded the Bank to the tune of Rs.6.80 crores by taking financial help/loans on the basis of fake securities and fake guarantors. The approved valuers, namely, M.I.Khan and Rajesh Khanna were also named in the FIR as associates of the main accused. The petitioner was also named and it was alleged against her that she also conspired with the other accused persons in grant of loan. 4. The charge-sheet was submitted against nine persons including the petitioner. The facts are that Sudhir Kumar Jain, proprietor of M/s. Jamuna Construction and Director of M/s. Anita Contractor and construction applied for cash credit facilityand mortgaged their property. It is alleged that the cash credit facility was obtained by them on the basis of forged and fabricated documents by which wrongful loss was caused to the Bank. The only allegation against the petitioner is that she in the capacity of Panel Advocate gave two incorrect reports to the Bank with regard to the properties mortgaged with the Bank. 5. The submission on behalf of the petitioner is that while giving reports to the Bank, the petitioner clearly indicated that the report was being given on the basis of documents produced before her by the Bank and the records available in the office of the Sub-Registrar. 5. The submission on behalf of the petitioner is that while giving reports to the Bank, the petitioner clearly indicated that the report was being given on the basis of documents produced before her by the Bank and the records available in the office of the Sub-Registrar. There is absolutely no evidence to the effect that the petitioner being Panel Lawyer of the Bank, conspired with the other accused persons. The involvement of the petitioner in the alleged conspiracy is not at all established from the record. Moreover, the petitioner is not liable for criminal prosecution in the light of law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Central Bureau of Investigation Vs. K. Narayana Rao, reported in 2012(3) SCC (Cri) 1183. 6. In this case, the Hon'ble Supreme Court while considering similar case, observed that a lawyer does not tell his client that he shall win the case in all circumstances. Likewise a physician would not assure the patient of full recovery in every case. The only assurance which such a professional can give or can be given by implication is that he is possessed of the requisite skill in that branch and while undertaking the performance of the task, he would be exercising his skill with reasonable competence. A lawyer owes a loyalty to the interest of the client and it is the lawyer's responsibility to act in manner that would best advance the interest of the client. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has further gone to observe that merely because his opinion may not be acceptable, he cannot be prosecuted particularly in the absence of cogent evidence to the effect that he was associated with other conspirators. 7. The petitioner while performing his duty as Panel Lawyer, gave reports on the basis of documents. There is no material on record to show that the petitioner was in any way involved in the offence committed by other co-accused persons. The petitioner has been illegally and falsely implicated in this case without any material. The petitioner had sought discharge by making appropriate application but his application has been rejected by the order dated 10.04.2013. 8. The learned counsel for the petitioner has referred to the opinion/report given to the Bank. The petitioner has been illegally and falsely implicated in this case without any material. The petitioner had sought discharge by making appropriate application but his application has been rejected by the order dated 10.04.2013. 8. The learned counsel for the petitioner has referred to the opinion/report given to the Bank. In both the reports, the petitioner has clearly mentioned that on the basis of the records, she was of the opinion that Sudhir Kumar Jain and Ram Saran Singh Dinkar were the owners in respect of the said property and the property was marketable which could be equitably mortgaged with the Bank by depositing the original title deeds. The Bank acting upon these reports, mortgaged the property, but later on, it was found that the property did not belong to them. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, it was part of the job of the petitioner to give such reports on the basis of documents. The opinion given by the petitioner was not binding upon the Bank. If the Bank had any doubt with regard to the title of the main accused, it was well within its power to have further verified the aforesaid fact, but the Bank instead of doing so, acted upon the reports of the petitioner and granted cash credit limit. It is also a submission on behalf of the petitioner that at the most, the petitioner may be held liable for gross negligence or misconduct if it is established by acceptable evidence that she was negligent but she cannot be charged for the offences with which she has been charged. 9. Sri Amarjeet Singh Rakhra learned counsel for the C.B.I. has submitted that admittedly the discharge application of the petitioner was rejected and the petitioner did not challenge the said order for the reason best known to her. Thus, the aforesaid order has attained finality. Now instead of challenging the order passed on her discharge application, the petitioner has approached this Court for quashing of the criminal proceedings. According to Sri Rakhra, the proceedings cannot be quashed, unless the order rejecting discharge is also challenged. It is next submitted by him that the petitioner has not placed before this Court all the reports which she gave in the matter in question. She has filed only two reports by which she gave her opinion/report and for this reason also, this petition is not maintainable. 10. It is next submitted by him that the petitioner has not placed before this Court all the reports which she gave in the matter in question. She has filed only two reports by which she gave her opinion/report and for this reason also, this petition is not maintainable. 10. The C.B.I. has conducted a detailed investigation and the involvement of the petitioner has also been found. The learned court below after due consideration has found that there is, prima facie, sufficient evidence/material to proceed against her and accordingly rejected her discharge application. The petitioner in criminal conspiracy with Bank officials and others, caused wrongful loss to the Bank and wrongful gain to other accused persons. The report given by the petitioner, was to the effect that the Bank could create a valid equitable mortgage in respect of the property belonging to the main accused. It appears that she did not verify the documents and gave the report in connivance with the main accused. The Bank treating the reports to be true, created mortgage whereas the said property had already been sold of by them. Had the petitioner verified the records from the office of the Sub Registrar, the fraud would not have been committed. In these circumstances, the petition filed by the petitioner has no force and is liable to be dismissed. 11. It is not disputed that the petitioner was a Panel Lawyer of the Bank and it was her duty to give report whenever required by the Bank. In the case in hand also the Bank asked the petitioner to give her report with regard to the properties sought to be mortgaged with the Bank for cash credit loan facility to the main accused. The petitioner gave reports on the basis of the documents and relying upon the opinion/report of the petitioner, the Bank created equitable mortgage and granted cash credit facility to the main accused. During the course of inquiry and investigation, it has been found that the properties which were mortgaged with the Bank, were not owned by the person who stood as guarantor. The question is as to whether the Panel Lawyer who gives report on the basis of documents, can be held liable for the criminal prosecution. 12. During the course of inquiry and investigation, it has been found that the properties which were mortgaged with the Bank, were not owned by the person who stood as guarantor. The question is as to whether the Panel Lawyer who gives report on the basis of documents, can be held liable for the criminal prosecution. 12. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has considered this aspect of the matter in the case of K. Narayana Rao (supra), The Hon'ble Supreme Court after considering the matter in detail has observed that in such cases, the Panel Lawyer may be held liable for negligence or misconduct, if established by evidence but so far as the criminal prosecution is concerned, he cannot be prosecuted for the simple reason that unless there is cogent evidence to the effect that such lawyer was associated with conspirators, he cannot be held liable merely because his opinion was not acceptable. 13. I do not find any force in the submissions of the learned counsel for the C.B.I. that unless the discharge order is challenged, this petition for quashing of the criminal proceedings is not maintainable because if the criminal proceedings against the petitioner are quashed, the order rejecting discharge will have no effect. 14. The Bank of India who was the sufferer in this matter was also impleaded as opposite party and was also represented by his counsel but he also failed to justify the prosecution of the petitioner. 15. For the aforesaid reasons and in view of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of K. Narayana Rao (supra), I am of the view that the prosecution of the petitioner for criminal offence is nothing but abuse of the process of law and it is a fit case in which this Court should interfere to secure the ends of justice and the proceedings against the petitioner be quashed. 16. This petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. filed by the petitioner is allowed and the criminal prosecution of the petitioner for the offence under Sections 120-B, 420, 467, 468, 471 IPC and Section 13(1) read with 13(1)(d) of Prevention of Corruption Act arising out of crime No.RCBD 1 2008 E 0002, relating to police station C.B.I., pending in the court of Special Judge, Anti-Corruption (West), Lucknow are quashed. However, the criminal proceedings may go on against the other charge-sheeted co-accused persons.