Key Points: - The settlement between bank and company, recorded via DRT consent decree and RBI OTS, can lead to quashing if ends of justice and no public interest are harmed (!) (!) (!) . - The Court discusses Gian Singh framework: quashing allowed for civil/commercial disputes with remote likelihood of conviction, excluding heinous, violent, or public-statute offences like PC Act cases (!) (!) - (!) . - Comparisons with NL Jain, Nikhil Merchant, and Narinder Singh establish that consent/decree and bank exoneration can justify quashing when the dispute is civil/financial and not willful default or malfeasance; however, Doshi/Duncan lines caution against simplistic application in more serious offenses (!) - (!) . - The RBI OTS scheme excludes willful default, fraud, malfeasance; reliance on OTS must show compliance with its terms and that the bank has exonerated the accused in letters/consents (!) - (!) (!) . - The High Court ultimately quashed the proceedings due to prolonged trial and civil nature of the dispute, ordering a cost deposit to PMNRF (!) - (!) .

What is the scope of the High Court's power under Section 482 CrPC to quash criminal proceedings in light of settlements under RBI OTS and civil decrees?

What are the criteria for quashing criminal proceedings where the dispute is predominantly civil in nature and a settlement/consent decree exists between the parties?

What is the relevance and impact of judgments in NL Jain, Nikhil Merchant, Gian Singh, Narinder Singh, and Duncans Agro on the present case's applicability of quashing based on settlement?