US Constitution Trumps Presidential Tariff Powers
28 Feb 2026
Non-Compliance with Court Summons Amounts to Contempt: Allahabad HC Issues Warrant Against HDFC Life Branch Head in Cheating Bail Case
02 Mar 2026
Bank Can Adjust OTS Deposit on Borrower Default, No Cheating u/s 420 IPC: Delhi High Court
02 Mar 2026
Divij Kumar Quits CMS INDUSLAW for Independent Practice
03 Mar 2026
Global Lawyers Debate AI Liability in Autonomous Vehicles
03 Mar 2026
CCPA Fines Startup ₹8 Lakh for False Child Growth Claims
05 Mar 2026
Madras High Court Scoffs at Police Custody Injury Claim
05 Mar 2026
India's Criminal Investigations Face Systemic Conviction Crisis
05 Mar 2026
Kerala HC Slams TDB Financial Discipline in Ayyappa Conclave, Orders Auditor Report on Past Anomalies: High Court of Kerala
06 Mar 2026
Back
Next 
VIKRAM NATH, SANDEEP MEHTA
N. S. Gnaneshwaran – Appellant
Versus
Inspector of Police – Respondent
Headnote: Read headnote
JUDGMENT :
VIKRAM NATH, J.
1. Leave granted.
2. The present appeals arise out of order dated 19.11.2024 passed by the Madurai Bench of the High Court of Madras in Crl. O.P. (MD) Nos. 586 and 595 of 2024, whereby the High Court dismissed the petitions filed by the appellants under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 19731 [Cr.P.C.] seeking quashing of criminal proceedings initiated against them for offences under Section 120B read with Sections 420, 468, and 471 of the Indian Penal Code, 18602 [IPC] and under Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.3 [PC Act]
3. The facts relevant to the present appeals are as follows:
Criminal proceedings can be quashed where allowing criminal proceedings to continue would serve no meaningful purpose, particularly when dispute between parties has already been resolved through a fu....
Criminal proceedings under special statutes like the Prevention of Corruption Act cannot be quashed solely based on civil settlements, emphasizing the need for trials to proceed.
Criminal proceedings under the Prevention of Corruption Act cannot be quashed based on civil settlements, emphasizing the need for trial completion.
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.
One Time Settlement can quash criminal proceedings in cases lacking evidence of fraud or forgery.
Economic offences cannot be quashed based on settlement due to their serious implications for public interest.
When matter has been compromised between borrower and Bank, continuation of criminal proceedings would not be justifiable.
Redundant criminal proceedings should not be allowed to continue.
Serious economic offences, such as forgery and corruption, cannot be quashed based on private settlements due to their impact on society and public interest.
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
Listen Article