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
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
One Time Settlement can quash criminal proceedings in cases lacking evidence of fraud or forgery.
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.
Criminal proceedings under the Prevention of Corruption Act cannot be quashed based on civil settlements, emphasizing the need for trial completion.
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.
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.
Quash of Criminal proceedings - Mere because the criminal law was set into motion on filing of a complaint, it cannot be the cardinal principle for continuity of proceedings as wherein the recovery p....
Amicable settlement between parties can justify quashing of criminal proceedings when no grievance remains from the complainant.
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.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.