SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2025 Supreme(Ker) 2723

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
A. BADHARUDEEN, J.
Jayson Joy – Petitioner 
Versus
CBI, Represented By Its Standing Counsel High Court Of Kerala and Ors. – Respondents
Crl.MC No. 3207 of 2025
Decided On : 18-09-2025

Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioner: Sri. S. Rajeev, Sri. V. Vinay, Sri. M.S. Aneer, Shri. Sarath K.P., Shri. Anilkumar C.R., Shri. K.S.Kiran Krishnan, Smt. Dipa V.

One Time Settlement can quash criminal proceedings in cases lacking evidence of fraud or forgery.

Headnote:(A) Indian Penal Code - Sections 406, 420 r/w 120B - Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 - Section 13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) - Accused seeking quashment of proceedings related to allegations of embezzlement and fraud linked to a microfinance firm's defaulted loans - The matter is settled via One Time Settlement (OTS) with the bank, rendering criminal proceedings unnecessary and unjust. (Paras 6, 16)

(B) Criminal Procedure - Quashment of proceedings - Court examined whether settlement affects criminal liability - The Supreme Court emphasized that settlement in civil matters does not erase criminal culpability when fraud is involved, but details showed no evidence of forgery in this case, leading to potential quashing. (Paras 15, 16)

Facts of the case:
Accused is charged with financial misconduct linked to loans from Central Bank of India that became Non-Performing Assets; prosecution claimed embezzlement but accused argued settlement (OTS) absolves criminal liability.

Findings of Court:
Criminal proceedings are quashed as no criminal intent remains post-OTS.

Issues: Whether completion of a One Time Settlement can remove grounds for criminal prosecution in financial fraud cases?

Ratio Decidendi: Continuation of criminal proceedings deemed oppressive when settlement exists and no fraud in obtaining loans is established.

Result: Criminal Miscellaneous case allowed; all proceedings quashed.

Judgement Key Points

The proceedings were quashed because the court found that there was no evidence of forgery or manipulation in the loan transactions, and the matter had been settled through a One Time Settlement (OTS), which effectively closed the financial liabilities. The court determined that continuing criminal proceedings in such a scenario would be oppressive and unnecessary, especially since the dispute was resolved and no criminal intent remained. Additionally, the court recognized that the allegations did not involve forged documents or a cleverly conceived scheme to commit financial fraud, which are typically grounds for maintaining such proceedings. The settlement indicated that the criminal liability had been effectively addressed, making further prosecution redundant and unjust.


ORDER :

A. BADHARUDEEN, J.

Accused No.2 in Crime No. RC0332024A0005/2024, registered by the ACB, Cochin, has filed this Criminal Miscellaneous Case seeking to quash all proceedings in the said crime.

2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned Special Public Prosecutor appearing for the CBI. Perused the relevant decisions placed by the learned counsel for the petitioner. Also gone through the statement filed by the investigating officer, along with the statements submitted by the Central Bank of India, Palakkad branch, dated 23.12.2024.

3. In this matter, crime was registered alleging commission of offences punishable under Sections 406 and 420 r/w Section 120B of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as ‘IPC’ for short) as well as under Section 13 (2) r/w Section 13 (1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 , (hereinafter referred to as ‘PC Act,1988’ for short) by the accused, acting on a complaint filed by Sri. Ujjwal Kumar Chandra, Regional Head, Central Bank of India, Regional Office, Cochin. The allegation in the FIR is that the unknown Public servants of Central Bank of India, along with Directors of M/s.Shalom Micro Finance Ltd, namely, Shri Jaison Joy M.J. (Managing Director), Shri.Job Manthottathil Joy (Addl. Director), Shri.Sivadas Chettoor (Addl.Director), Smt.Velandy Saraswathi (Addl.Director), Shri.Emmanuel Vijayanand Muray (Nominee Director), Shri.Sivasankaran Kannan (Addl. Director), Shri.Janardhanan V.K. (Director) and Shri.Raju Aruvummackal Cherian (Addl. Director) and unknown others were involved in this case. The prosecution case is that the Directors of M/s.Shalom Finance Ltd. availed 4 term loans for the period from January 2010 to March 2013 to the tune of Rs.1132 lakh. The borrowers mortgaged 3 acres of land and School building of the Guarantor as security towards the loan. The company represented by its Directors and its guarantors committed default in repayment of the loan as agreed by them and the account had been classified as NPA on 31.12.2013 by the Bank. The total loss sustained to the Central Bank of India is Rs.7,25,94,608/-. As per the complaint, Central Bank of India assigned Forensic Audit to M/s.Grandmark & Associates, Chartered Accountant, Kochi and the finding disclosed that this is a clear case of embezzlement of funds, fraud, breach of trust, misappropriation and cheating by the company and its borrowers to amass illegal wealth. These findings were accepted by the bank.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner argued that, as per the complaint produced as Annexure I, in paragraph No.6, the loan availed by the petitioner and his company is stated as Rs.1132 lakh (Rupees Eleven Crore and thirty two lakh only). The total outstanding amount with accrued interest as on 31.07.2017 was Rs.89,17,2,829/. After granting decree by the Debts Recovery Tribunal for the said amount with future interest, the petitioner availed One Time Settlement (OTS) provided by the Bank for the closure of the loan. Ultimately, altogether 3.40 Crore was repaid apart from the earlier repayments made, under the OTS and no liability to the bank is subsisting as above. It is also pointed out that, at the time of filing OA No.216/2015 before the Debt Recovery Tribunal-I, Ernakulam, no allegation regarding commission of any criminal offences alleged.

5. The learned counsel for the petitioner placed decision of the Apex Court in N.S. Gnaneshwaran Etc V. Inspector of Police and Another , reported in 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1257, to point out that in a similar case, the Apex Court quashed the proceedings. He also referred another decision of the Apex Court in K.Bharthi Devi and Ors . Vs. State of Telangana and Ors, reported in (2024) 10 SCC 384, with reference to paragraph Nos.16, 24 to 29 and 31 to 35, wherein also, the Apex Court quashed the proceedings in a case involving same set of facts. In paragraph Nos.34 and 35 of the above judgment, the Apex Court held as under:

“34. The facts in the p

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top