ORDER : K. Lakshman, J. Heard Mr. G. Vidya Sagar, learned Senior Counsel representing Mr. Mamidi Avinash Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Srinivas Kapatia, learned Special Public Prosecutor for CBI appearing for 1 st respondent and M/s. Pearl Law Associates appearing for respondent No.2. 2. The present Criminal Petition is filed under Section – 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short, ‘CrPC’) by the petitioner to quash the proceedings in C.C.No.44 of 2018 pending on the file of XXI Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad arising out of FIR No.RC-7E/2016/CBI/EOW/Chennai, dated 29.09.2016 of CBI, EOW, Chennai. The petitioner herein is A.7 in C.C.No.44 of 2018. The offences alleged against the petitioner herein are punishable under Sections 120-B read with 420, 468 and 471 of IPC. 3. On 29.09.2016, Sri D.Ravindra Rao, Deputy General Manager, State Bank of India, Secunderabad Zone -2 nd respondent, lodged a complaint with 1 st respondent alleging that M/s Akshaya Ornaments Pvt.Ltd. (AOPL) - A.1 initially represented by A.2 – Managing Director and A.3 – Director, father and son, having its registered office at Mahalakshmi Gems and Jewels Mall. Chirag Ali Lane, Abids, Hyderabad, work place at Shop No.108, Mayur Kushal Complex, Abids, Hyderabad, availed Working Capital Limit of Rs.9 Crores on 19.12.2012 from 2 nd respondent bank for a period of one year by furnishing fabricated document, proceedings of conversion of land as genuine one, secured credit facility and thereby cheated 2 nd respondent bank. The said account slipped into NPA on 24.01.2015 with an outstanding amount of Rs.8.93 Crores. 4. Basing on the said complaint dated 29.09.2016, the Inspector of Police, SPE/CBI/EOW/Chennai – the Investigating Officer, registered the aforesaid crime, conducted investigation and found that A.1 was engaged in the business of purchasing gold from wholesale authorized traders and getting their ornaments manufactured at their own workplace. A.2 and A.3 mortgaged two properties viz., an open land admeasuring Ac.23.03 guntas in Sy. Nos. 371, 372 and 377/Piki at Thummaloor Village, Maheshwaram Mandal, Ranga Reddy District in the name of A-2 who purchased the said property from Shri Syed Mumtaz Ali, through a Sale Deed 1410/2012 dated 13.04.2012, registered at SRO Maheshwaram Mandal and he semi-finished residential duplex house bearing No. 4 admeasuring 2100 sq. ft. built up area being a part of the premises No. 30-265/21/54 on the part of Plot No.41/150 sq. yds. in Sy. ft. built up area being a part of the premises No. 30-265/21/54 on the part of Plot No.41/150 sq. yds. in Sy. No. 304, situated at Geetha Nagar, Safilguda, Malkajgiri Mandal, Ranga Reddy District, with the 2 nd respondent bank. 5. The investigation further revealed that the landed property was valued by M/s Subha Syndicate represented by the petitioner herein vide his report dated 15.11.2012 for Rs. 22,02,28,470/-. Whereas, during April, 2012, the said property was purchased by A-2 from Sri Syed Mumtaz Ali only for Rs. 5.83 Crores. During February 2015, the same property was re-valued by the petitioner herein and the title deed stood in the name of Shri Syed Mumtaz Ali but not A-2. In addition, the second collateral property was also valued by the petitioner vide his report dated 03.11.2012 for Rs. 68,10,000-00. The petitioner/A.7 had given only an inflated value of the property which was purchased only for Rs. 5.83 Crores. Thus, the petitioner herein and A.8 with criminal intention to favour A-1 to A.3 to avail the credit facilities from the bank by deceiving it to the tune of Rs. 9 Crores, issued the above said legal opinions and valuation reports. 6. Investigation further revealed that after obtaining second valuation report dated 24.12.2012 from the petitioner/A.7, the equitable mortgage was created on both collateral properties on 19.01.2013 and the Memorandum of Deposit of Title Deed (MOD) was registered with the District Registrar, Ranga Reddy District, thereby the limits were sanctioned to A-1 company and credited to the CC account No. 62267120108 at State Bank of India (eSBH). 7. Shi Syed Mumtaz Ali S/o Late Syed Mohammed Ali, a resident of Thummaloor Village, Maheswaram Mandal raised an objection through a letter dated 28.02.2013 regarding release of credit/loan to A-1 company on the ground that the sale consideration of the property under document No. 1410 of 2012 dated 13.04.2012 was not received by him as A-2 gave an undertaking to him that the payment would be honoured on or before 21.05.2012 after getting the loan sanctioned by the bank. Sri B Chandrakanth Gupta, the then Branch Manager, after consulting the then DGM, Zonal Officer, sent a reply to Sri Syed Mumtaz Ali on 04.03.2013 stating that the matter is extraneous to the bank's business transactions / dealings with the company and the dispute, if any, with the above company may be settled accordingly. Sri B Chandrakanth Gupta, the then Branch Manager, after consulting the then DGM, Zonal Officer, sent a reply to Sri Syed Mumtaz Ali on 04.03.2013 stating that the matter is extraneous to the bank's business transactions / dealings with the company and the dispute, if any, with the above company may be settled accordingly. The original Sale Deed No.1410/2012 dated 13.04.2012 was cancelled on 01.07.2013 by Sri Syed Mumtaz Ali with A-2 at Sub-Registrar Office, Abdullapur through cancellation deed bearing document No. 1851/2013 without the knowledge of State Bank of India (eSBH). 8. A.3 resigned from the directorship of A-1 Company during April 2013 replaced by A-4 Sri Molugu Rameshwara Chary, as one of the Director of A-1 Company. A-2 intimated the changes in the directorship of A-1 company to the bank and sought renewal of existing CC facility by suppressing the fact of cancellation of the landed property. Then, on request of A-2, the loan was renewed by the bank to the tune of Rs. 9 crore on 29.03.2014 with the same collateral securities. 9. Therefore, A.7/the petitioner herein had fraudulently cheated 2 nd respondent Bank by submitting false/fabricated documents to the tune of Rs. 8.93 Crores. 10. After completion of investigation, 1 st respondent - Investigating Officer filed charge sheet before the trial Court and the trial Court numbered the same as C.C.No.44 of 2018. 11. The petitioner herein – A.7 filed the present criminal petition seeking to quash the proceedings in the said C.C.No.44 of 2018 on the following grounds:- i. The Petitioner is an Engineer with M.Tech in Electrical (IIT- Kanpur). He started a Firm in the name and style of M/s. Subha Syndicate in the year 1992 to issue engineering valuations to various industries and Banks. ii. The petitioner was empanelled officially as a valuer by the State Bank of India, in 1997. iii. The Petitioner gave valuation to the subject landed property after inspecting the said site on 09.11.2012 basing on the sale deed bearing document No. 1410 of 2012 provided by the 2 nd respondent - Bank, wherein A.2 was the owner of the landed property at the said relevant point of time. iv. 2 nd respondent Bank requested for fresh valuation for the said property, without furnishing any other documents to prepare fresh valuation. iv. 2 nd respondent Bank requested for fresh valuation for the said property, without furnishing any other documents to prepare fresh valuation. v. Vide letter dated 04.02.2015, the Petitioner informed to the Bank that in his report dated 09.12.2012, he has mentioned A.2 as the title holder of the landed property as per the sale deed bearing document No.1410 of 2012 dated 09.04.2012 and Encumbrance Certificate. While preparing second valuation, the revenue records revealed that the sale deed was cancelled in 2013, much after the valuation report dated 09.12.2012 and the same is confirmed by Encumbrance Certificate. A.2 is no longer owner of the said property by virtue of cancellation of the said sale deed. vi. In reply to the letter dated 04.02.2015 of the Petitioner, the 2 nd respondent Bank vide letter dated 26.02.2015 sought for immediate submission of fresh valuation ignoring the details of the letter dated 04.02.2015. vii. The Petitioner had submitted another letter dated 04.03.2015 stating that the subject property does not belong to A.2, and the Encumbrance Certificate confirms the same. viii. After receiving letter dated 26.02.2015, the Petitioner had immediately dispatched fresh valuation report as on that date stating that the property does not belong to A.2 as the sale deed bearing document No.1410 of 2012 dated 09.04.2012 was cancelled which was confirmed by the Sub-Registrar. ix. The letter dated 10.03.2015 issued by the Petitioner was subsequently followed up with the valuation report dated 25.03.2015 submitted to the Complainant Bank. x. On receiving the letter dated 26.02.2015 of the 2 nd respondent Bank, on 10.03.2015, the Petitioner made one more representation stating that the said land does not belong to A.2. The title documents are not provided to Petitioner that it is disputed land. In fresh valuation report dated 25.03.2015, the Petitioner clearly mentioned that the market value of the subject land cannot be ascertained as mandal jurisdiction of the said land by then was not ascertained by the revenue authorities. However, the Petitioner mentioned Sub-Registrar Office rate in the subject locality. xi. Head Office of the SBI issued Circular No. GB/2015-16/3 dated 02.04.2015 removing the Petitioner from the Panel for unsatisfactory work stating that Executing Committee at their meeting held on 10.03.2015 accorded approval for removal of some of the valuers from the panel for various reasons. xii. However, the Petitioner mentioned Sub-Registrar Office rate in the subject locality. xi. Head Office of the SBI issued Circular No. GB/2015-16/3 dated 02.04.2015 removing the Petitioner from the Panel for unsatisfactory work stating that Executing Committee at their meeting held on 10.03.2015 accorded approval for removal of some of the valuers from the panel for various reasons. xii. Vide letter dated 25.07.2016, the Bank informed that there were deficiencies in valuation reports dated 15.11.2012 and 25.03.2015 as it is mentioned in the said reports that the land does not belong to A.2 but to third person and the said land does not come under the purview of Thummaloor Village but comes under Maheshwaram Village. xiii. On 03.08.2016, the Petitioner submitted detailed reply to the 2 nd respondent Bank specifically mentioning about his informing to the Bank with regard to cancellation of sale deed bearing No. 1410/2012 and ascertainment of mandal jurisdiction. But the bank failed to consider the same and removed his firm from empanelment. Aggrieved by the same, he filed W.P.No.30765 of 2017 challenging its de- panelment. Vide order dated 12.09.2017, this Court suspended the proceedings dated 02.04.2015 xiv. The contents of the charge sheet, more particularly, the allegations leveled against the petitioner lack the ingredients of the aforesaid offences 12. With the aforesaid submissions, the petitioner/A.7 sought to quash the proceedings in C.C.No. 44 of 2018 against him. 13. Respondent No.1 field counter contending that there are specific allegations against the petitioner/A.7. All the aforesaid contentions are defences which the petitioner has to take during trial and it is for the trial Court to consider the same. 14. Sri G.Vidya Sagar, learned Senior Counsel and Mr. Srinivas Kapatia, learned Special Public Prosecutor, CBI, made their submissions extensively. 15. In support of his case, the learned Senior Counsel has placed reliance on the principle laid down by the High Court of Madras in L.N.Rajagopalan vs. State by Additional Superintendent of Police , 2009 SCC OnLine Mad 3298 , Apex Court in CBI vs. K.Narayana Rao , (2012) 9 SCC 512 , the High Court of Judicature at Hyderabad for the State of Telangana and the State of Andhra Pradesh in V.Venkata Anil Kumar vs. CBI, Hyderabad , Order dated 06.08.2015 in Crl.P.Nos.6432 and 6448 of 2014 and High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Amaravati in Mr. P. Sreenivasulu V. CBI, State of Andhra Pradesh , Visakhapatnam Branch, Order dated 28.07.2021 16. Learned Special Public Prosecutor, CBI, placed reliance on the principle laid down by the Apex Court in Abhishek Singh V. Ajay Kumar , 2025 SCC ONLINE SC 1313 , the Delhi High Court in Ashughosh Kumar Nirmal v. Central Bureau of Investigation , 2021 SCC OnLine Del 410 and High Court of Judicature at Hyderabad for the State of Telangana and the State of Andhra Pradesh in G. Satyanand Rao v. The State, CBI, Hyderabad , Crl.R.Case Nos.551, 552 and 555 of 2011. ANALYSIS AND FINDING OF THE COURT: 17. As discussed supra, the allegations leveled against the petitioner/A.7 in the charge sheet are that the petitioner/A.7 had issued valuation report dated 15.11.2012 with an inflated value of the collateral properties with criminal intention to favour A-1 to A.3 to avail credit facility from 2 nd respondent bank and thus deceived the bank making it to grant credit facility to them to the tune of Rs. 9 Crores by creating equitable mortgage on the aforesaid properties basing on his valuation report. The allegation against him is that vide his second valuation report dated 24.12.2012, he stated contrary to his first valuation report that the landed property is not in the name of A.2 and the mandal jurisdiction of the landed property was not ascertained. Therefore, A.7/the petitioner herein, being the valuer of the bank, had fraudulently cheated 2 nd respondent Bank by submitting false/fabricated documents to the tune of Rs. 8.93 Crores and committed breach of trust. 18. It is not in dispute that the petitioner herein is the proprietor of M/s Subha Syndicate and it is an approved valuator of 2 nd respondent bank at the relevant point of time and it was de- empanelled later. It has submitted report dated 15.11.2012 for Rs.22,02,28,470/-. In April, 2012, the subject property was purchased by A.2 from Syed Mumtaz Ali, for Rs.5.83 Crores. During February, 2015, the same property was re-valued by the petitioner and the title deed stood in the name of Sri Syed Mumtaz Ali. 19. It is also apt to note that the second collateral property was valued by the petitioner vide his report dated 03.11.2012 for Rs.68,10,000/-. Thus, petitioner submitted an inflated value of the property which was purchased for Rs.5.83 Crores. 19. It is also apt to note that the second collateral property was valued by the petitioner vide his report dated 03.11.2012 for Rs.68,10,000/-. Thus, petitioner submitted an inflated value of the property which was purchased for Rs.5.83 Crores. The petitioner, in collusion with A.8, submitted the said reports to favour A.1 to A.3 to enable them to get credit facilities from 2 nd respondent bank by deceiving the Bank to a tune of Rs.9 Crores and committed the aforesaid offences. 20. In L.N. Rajagopalan (supra), the Madras High Court held that the petitioner therein was not liable to be prosecuted for various offences, as he was only an approved valuer. The poor approved valuer, though well qualified in assessing the value of the property, had been wrongly implicated on the allegation that no properties were in existence, as though he had committed an offence of cheating punishable under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code. The Court held that the other charges under Sections 419, 467, 468 and 471 read with Section 120-B of IPC were also without any basis, and that the allegation leveled against him is that he has involved in a conspiracy with the other accused was only a figment of the imagination of the investigating agency. Though the valuer of the bank had been subjected to prosecution for offences under Sections 120-B read with Sections 420, 419, 467, 468 and 471 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act by the trial Court, the Madras High Court held that such prosecution was unsustainable and the Court finds that no prima facie case has been made out. 21. In the present case, facts are different and that prima facie there are specific allegations against the petitioner herein. 22. In CBI V. K. Narayana Rao (supra) of the Apex Court, the Petitioner, CBI preferred SLP being aggrieved the order of the High Court in quashing the proceedings against respondent, a legal practitioner and a panel advocate for Vijaya Bank. The only allegation against him is that he submitted false legal opinion to the Bank in respect of the housing loans in the capacity of a panel advocate and did not point out actual ownership of the properties. The only allegation against him is that he submitted false legal opinion to the Bank in respect of the housing loans in the capacity of a panel advocate and did not point out actual ownership of the properties. The Court held that the offence of conspiracy cannot be deemed to have been established on mere suspicion and surmises or inference not supported by cogent and acceptable evidence. A professional may be held liable for negligence on one of the two findings that either he was not possessed of the requisite skill which he professed to have possessed for, he did not exercise with reasonable competence. It was further held that at the most the respondent may be liable for gross negligence or professional misconduct if it is established by proper evidence. Thereby, upheld the quash of the High court. 23. In V. Venkata Anil Kumar (supra), the High Court of Judicature at Hyderabad for the State of Telangana and the State of Andhra Pradesh, observed that the allegations against the petitioners, Advocates, who gave legal opinion, while the respondents were the CBI and bank officials. It was held that none of the records, namely the FIR, the charge sheet, or the statements recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C., placed any material to show the petitioner’s criminal association with the other accused for hatching a criminal conspiracy to cheat the bank. At best, the allegation amounted to negligence on the part of the petitioner. To impute criminal negligence, the prosecution must invariably establish mensrea on the part of the accused, which was found to be lacking in the case. Considering the above aspects, the Court held that there was no prima facie material to prosecute the petitioner and that continuation of the criminal proceedings would certainly amount to an abuse of the process of the Court. 24. In Mr. P. Sreenivasulu (supra) of High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Amaravati, the petitioner is an empanelled property valuer for Bank of Maharashtra, Nellore. The Petitioner was charged with the offence punishable under Section 120-B r/w 420, 467 and 471 of IPC, 1860 and other provisions of PC Act. The allegations leveled against him were based on false and fabricated house site document issued by MRO, the petitioner without noticing the same valued the at Rs.49,99,500/-. He has filed a petition to discharge him. The Petitioner was charged with the offence punishable under Section 120-B r/w 420, 467 and 471 of IPC, 1860 and other provisions of PC Act. The allegations leveled against him were based on false and fabricated house site document issued by MRO, the petitioner without noticing the same valued the at Rs.49,99,500/-. He has filed a petition to discharge him. The trial Court has dismissed the petition observing that the property is undervalued or valued is a question of fact, which can be decided only during the course of trial, against with criminal revision was filed. The High Court upon consideration of facts and law laid down placing reliance upon the principle laid down by the Apex Court in CBI Vs. K. Narayana Rao (supra) and Madras High court in L.N. Rajagopalan (Supra) has held that Panel valuers/professional cannot be charged for the offence under Sections 420 of IPC along with other conspirators without proper and acceptable link between them. The empanelled property valuer of the complainant bank has given his opinion as such the offences under the provisions of the IPC or PC Act are not attracted to the petitioner therein. 25. In Abhishek Singh (supra), the Apex Court observed that the allegation levelled was that the respondents, who were bank officials, had committed offences under Sections 420, 406 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code in relation to the revaluation and retention of the gold pledged by the appellant, a bank customer who had availed a loan. The High Court had quashed the FIR holding it to be a mere counterblast and malicious. On consideration of these aspects, the Apex Court held that the High Court had relied upon material other than the FIR. It was further held that once the loan stood settled, it was difficult to understand as to why the gold was revalued and auctioned by the respondents. The Apex Court held that in no circumstances could it be said that no prima facie case was made out and, accordingly, set aside the order of quashing and restored the proceedings. 26. It was further held that once the loan stood settled, it was difficult to understand as to why the gold was revalued and auctioned by the respondents. The Apex Court held that in no circumstances could it be said that no prima facie case was made out and, accordingly, set aside the order of quashing and restored the proceedings. 26. In Ashughosh Kumar Nirmal (supra), Delhi High Court held that the allegation against the petitioner, empanelled valuer of Corporation Bank, was that he prepared inflated valuation reports in regard to the properties offered for mortgage by the borrowers, and that when the respondent got the same properties valued from independent valuers, there was a huge difference between the valuation given by the petitioner therein and those independent valuers. The learned Trial Court, framed charges against the petitioner, which were challenged before the high court to quash the same. Upon consideration, the Court held that the value of properties is variable and may include a dip in prices, and that the contentions raised with regard to opinion-based valuation reports are matters of evidence. The Court further held that the observations made by the learned Trial Court against the petitioner were all matters of evidence which cannot be decided unless and until evidence is led, and accordingly found no infirmity in the order on charge and upheld the same without quashing. 27. In G. Satyanand Rao (supra), the High Court of Judicature at Hyderabad for the State of Telangana and the State of Andhra Pradesh held that the petitioner, a panel valuer of the banks and was arrayed as an accused on the allegation that he had valued the properties offered as collateral security at higher values, thereby facilitating sanction of higher loan amounts. Charge sheets were filed for the offences punishable under Sections 120-B, 419, 420, 467, 468 and 471 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The petitioner filed applications under Section 239 CrPC seeking discharge, which were dismissed by the learned Special Judge for CBI Cases holding that there was material to proceed against the accused. The petitioner filed applications under Section 239 CrPC seeking discharge, which were dismissed by the learned Special Judge for CBI Cases holding that there was material to proceed against the accused. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner filed criminal revision cases and on consideration of the said aspects, the High Court held that whether the valuation reports were false or inflated is a matter to be decided during trial, that at the stage of discharge a meticulous examination of evidence is not permissible, and that no illegality or perversity was found in the order passed by the trial court, and held that if the panel valuer exhibited conscious criminal or culpable negligence as a valuer and committed breach of his duty and caused loss, it amount to criminal misconduct prima facie and accordingly dismissed the revision cases. 28. It is the specific contention of the petitioner herein that none of offences charged under Section 120-B r/w 420, 468 and 471 of IPC can be attributed to him as the charge sheet does not speak or evidence the link between all the accused and their meeting of mind to conspire to defraud the bank. The petitioner does not have expertise to dispute the genuineness of the document and as a valuer, it is not his duty to look into the authenticity of the documents. Section 420 is concerned, there is no dishonest intention on his part much less any inducement and deceit. 29. On the other hand, it is the specific contention of 2 nd respondent bank that the loan became NPA on 24.01.2015, for recovery proceedings, the bank asked the petitioner to conduct second valuation of the landed property and submit report, for which the petitioner contrary to his own previous valuation report, issued second valuation report dated 25.03.2015 stating that A.2 was not the owner of the landed property and mandal jurisdiction of the subject land is yet to be ascertained by the revenue officials. Thus, the petitioner issued false valuation report initially with inflated value of the landed property basing on false conversion certificate, facilitated A.2 and A.3 to misappropriate the funds of the bank and cheated the bank, which acts of the petitioner constitutes the subject offences. 30. Thus, prima facie, there are specific allegations against the petitioner/A.7. The facts in the aforesaid judgments are different from the facts in the case on hand. 31. 30. Thus, prima facie, there are specific allegations against the petitioner/A.7. The facts in the aforesaid judgments are different from the facts in the case on hand. 31. In Somjeet Mallick v. State of Jharkhand , (2024) 10 SCC 527 , the Apex Court held as follows:- 15. Before we proceed to test the correctness of the impugned order, we must bear in mind that at the stage of deciding whether a criminal proceeding or FIR, as the case may be, is to be quashed at the threshold or not, the allegations in the FIR or the police report or the complaint, including the materials collected during investigation or inquiry, as the case may be, are to be taken at their face value so as to determine whether a prima facie case for investigation or proceeding against the accused, as the case may be, is made out . The correctness of the allegations is not to be tested at this stage. 16. To commit an offence, unless the penal statute provides otherwise, mens rea is one of the essential ingredients. Existence of mens rea is a question of fact which may be inferred from the act in question as well as the surrounding circumstances and conduct of the accused. As a sequitur, when a party alleges that the accused, despite taking possession of the truck on hire, has failed to pay hire charges for months together, while making false promises for its payment, a prima facie case, reflective of dishonest intention on the part of the accused, is made out which may require investigation. In such circumstances, if the FIR is quashed at the very inception, it would be nothing short of an act which thwarts a legitimate investigation. 17. It is trite law that FIR is not an encyclopaedia of all imputations. Therefore, to test whether an FIR discloses commission of a cognizable offence what is to be looked at is not any omission in the accusations but the gravamen of the accusations contained therein to find out whether, prima facie, some cognizable offence has been committed or not. At this stage, the court is not required to ascertain as to which specific offence has been committed. 18. At this stage, the court is not required to ascertain as to which specific offence has been committed. 18. It is only after investigation, at the time of framing charge, when materials collected during investigation are before the court, the court has to draw an opinion as to for commission of which offence the accused should be tried. Prior to that, if satisfied, the court may even discharge the accused. Thus, when the FIR alleges a dishonest conduct on the part of the accused which, if supported by materials, would disclose commission of a cognizable offence, investigation should not be thwarted by quashing the FIR. 19. No doubt, a petition to quash the FIR does not become infructuous on submission of a police report under Section 173(2)CrPC, but when a police report has been submitted, particularly when there is no stay on the investigation, the court must apply its mind to the materials submitted in support of the police report before taking a call whether the FIR and consequential proceedings should be quashed or not. More so, when the FIR alleges an act which is reflective of a dishonest conduct of the accused. 32. As discussed supra, in the present case also, prima facie, there are specific allegations against the petitioner/A.7. The aforesaid contentions of the petitioner are defences which he has to take during trial and it is for the trial Court to consider. The petitioner has to face trial and prove his innocence before the trial Court. On the said contentions, this Court cannot quash the proceedings against the petitioner herein. 33. In the light of the aforesaid contentions and facts of the case, prima facie, there are specific allegations against the petitioner herein/A.7 that he, being the panel valuer of the 2 nd respondent bank, conspired with A.2 and A.3 with an intention to help them for obtaining loan from the bank, submitted false valuation report with inflated value of the landed property and forged conversion certificate. A.2 and A.3 used the same as genuine one and created equitable mortgage on both the aforesaid collateral properties and made the bank to grant credit facilities to A.2 and A.3 to the tune of Rs. 9 Crores, and thereby cheated the bank causing huge loss to it. A.2 and A.3 used the same as genuine one and created equitable mortgage on both the aforesaid collateral properties and made the bank to grant credit facilities to A.2 and A.3 to the tune of Rs. 9 Crores, and thereby cheated the bank causing huge loss to it. The other allegation against the petitioner is that he issued second valuation certificate dated 25.03.2015 stating that A.2 was not the owner of the landed property and jurisdiction was not ascertained, which is contra to his own first valuation report dated 09.12.2012. 34. Prima facie, there are specific allegations against the petitioner herein and the same are triable issues. The petitioner has to face trial and prove his innocence before the trial Court. Once this Court finds that there is prima facie, material to proceed against the petitioner/A.7, this Court cannot exercise power under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. Even the contentions raised by the petitioner are also triable issues which this Court cannot go into in an application filed under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. Thus, the petitioner fails to make out any case to quash the proceedings in C.C.No.44 of 2018. Therefore, this Criminal Petition is liable to be dismissed and is dismissed. 35. In the light of the aforesaid discussion, this Criminal Petition is dismissed. However, liberty is granted to the petitioner/A.7 to raise the contentions/grounds which he raised before this Court, before the trial Court in C.C.No. 44 of 2018. As a sequel, the miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in the criminal petition shall stand closed.