Back
VIKRAM NATH, PRASANNA B. VARALE
Anil Bhavarlal Jain – Appellant
Versus
State Of Maharashtra – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
PRASANNA B. VARALE, J.
1. Leave granted.
2. In these appeals filed under Article 136 of Constitution of India, the appellant is seeking setting aside of the common order dated 26.07.2023 passed by the High Court of Bombay in Criminal Writ Petition No. 2546 of 2022 and Criminal writ Petition no. 1960 of 2022, wherein the High Court dismissed the petitions filed by the appellants herein, under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 19731[In short, “Cr.P.C.”] seeking quashing of the FIR bearing No. RC/026/2020/A-0010 dated 24/07/2020, for offences punishable under Sections 409, 420 and 120B of the Indian Penal Code, 18602[In short, “IPC”] along with Section 13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 19883[In short, “PC Act”] and the consequent chargesheet.
3. The appellants in the Appeal arising from SLP(Crl.) No.10078 of 2023 are the Directors of M/s Sun Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. 4[In short, “the Company”]; and appellants in the Appeal arising from SLP (Crl.) No.12776 of 2023 are the employees of respondent no.3 Bank. The appellants in both the appeals are the named accused in the above- mentioned FIR.
4. In the year of 2013, appellant nos. 1 and 2, being Direct
Economic offences cannot be quashed based on settlement due to their serious implications for public interest.
Serious economic offences, such as forgery and corruption, cannot be quashed based on private settlements due to their impact on society and public interest.
Exercise of inherent jurisdiction – Stage and timing of settlement play a crucial role in determination as to whether to exercise power under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. 1973 or not.
Redundant criminal proceedings should not be allowed to continue.
Economic offences involving cheating, forgery and impersonation cannot be quashed under inherent powers based on compromise due to their societal impact and harm to public financial interests.
Settlement of monetary disputes does not automatically justify the quashing of criminal proceedings in cases involving serious allegations of criminality.
One Time Settlement can quash criminal proceedings in cases lacking evidence of fraud or forgery.
Quashing of FIRs for serious economic offences, such as forgery, cannot be justified by private settlements due to their implications on societal interests.
The court emphasized that economic offences involving the financial and economic well-being of the State have implications beyond private disputes, and the gravity of such offences must be considered....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
