Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
A.BADHARUDEEN
Jayson Joy – Appellant
Versus
CBI, Represented By Its Standing Counsel High Court Of Kerala – Respondent
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,
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.
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
