Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2025 Supreme(HP) 1308

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
RAKESH KAINTHLA, J.
Disha Shukla - Petitioner
Versus
State of H.P. & Ors. - Respondents
Cr. MMO No. 923 of 2024
Decided On : 17-10-2025

Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioner:Ms Tanu Sharma, Advocate
For the Respondents:Mr Ajit Sharma, Deputy Advocate, General, Mr Arvind Sharma, Advocate

The court reinforced that economic offences with societal implications should not be quashed based on civil settlements.

Headnote:(A) Indian Penal Code - Sections 420, 467, 468, 471 - Quashing of FIR - The petitioner sought quashing of FIR alleging forgery in securing a loan. The FIR represented serious allegations that had societal implications. The court reiterated that criminal offences with a social impact should not be quashed just based on civil settlements between parties. (Paras 1 to 3, 12 to 18)

(B) Criminal Procedure Code - Section 482 - High Court's inherent power - The court underscored the limited nature and criteria for quashing criminal proceedings, especially in cases involving economic offences. The interests of society at large, alongside ensuring justice, should guide the court's decisions. (Paras 16, 26)

Facts of the case:
The petitioner, along with accomplices, procured a vehicle loan by submitting forged documents to the Punjab and Sindh Bank. A police investigation revealed the involvement in a conspiracy to cheat the bank, leading to the FIR's registration based on forgery allegations. The bank later withdrew its civil suit related to the monetary claim against the petitioner without affecting the criminal proceedings.

Findings of Court:
The court established the gravity and societal consequences of the alleged forgery, emphasizing public interest in prosecuting such offences. Previous rulings affirmed that economic crimes could not be dismissed merely based on settlement claims between involved parties.

Issues: The court addressed whether the petitioner's civil payment and settlement with the bank justified quashing the FIR and assessed the public interest in continuing the prosecution.

Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the nature of the alleged offences against the bank was serious enough to retain the FIR, asserting that quashing under Section 482 is inappropriate when dealing with societal and public interest matters. The essential evaluation must also consider the broader implications of such offences.

Result: The present petition fails, and the same is dismissed.

Judgment :

Rakesh Kainthla, J.

The petitioner has filed the present petition for seeking quashing of FIR No. 199 of 2014 dated 26.08.2014 registered at Police Station Kangra, District Kangra, H.P., for the commission of offences punishable under Sections 420, 467, 468 and 471 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).

2. Briefly stated, the facts giving rise to the present petition are that the informant made a complaint asserting that Punjab and Sindh Bank was carrying on the business of banking and providing various facilities to the customers. The petitioner Smt. Disha Shukla and Mr Ajay Dutt approached the bank on 14.04.2014 to seek a loan to purchase a vehicle. They were advised to bring a proforma invoice/quotation from the concerned dealer. Accused Nos 1 and 2 visited the branch on 16.04.2014 and supplied a proforma invoice ofRs. 4,89,596/- issued by M/s T.R Enterprises as the cost of the car. The Officer In-charge sanctioned and advanced the vehicle loan of Rs. 3,67,000/- on 21.04.2014. The amount of Rs. 4,89,596/- was transmitted to the account of accused No.4. The accused Nos. 1 and 2 executed various loan documents in favour of the bank. Accused Nos. 2 and 3 guaranteed the repayment of the loan, and they executed a letter of guarantee on 21.04.2014 in favour of the bank. The Officer In-charge asked the accused Nos. 1 and 2 to supply the original retail invoice, insurance and the registration certificate containing the hypothecation entry in favour of the bank. However, Accused Nos. 1 and 2 did not supply the documents despite repeated request. Accused No. 2 supplied the copies of the insurance, sale certificate and challan book through email on 23.05.2014. The Officer In-charge called the phone number mentioned in the proforma invoice and asked for the original documents. Accused No.4 assured to send the documents within 2-3 days. The Officer In-charge went to the address mentioned in the proforma invoice and found that there was no such office. He also visited the office of the National Insurance Company at Dehra, who disclosed that the documents were fake and were not issued by the Company. The Officer In-charge tried to contact the accused Nos. 1 and 2, but they did not respond. Hence, a complaint was made to the police to take action as per the law.

3. The police registered the FIR and investigated the matter. It was found during the investigation that there was no agency in the name of M/s T.R. Enterprises at Sunehat. The documents submitted to the bank were forged. All the accused had conspired to cheat the bank. The handwriting and the specimen signatures were sent to the SFSL, and as per the report, the specimen signatures of the petitioner, Smt. Disha Shukla (S-1 to S-9) matched the disputed documents (Q1 to Q53). The police filed a chargesheet before the Court on 20.04.2015, and the matter was listed for recording the statements of prosecution witnesses on 31.07.2025.

4. Being aggrieved by the registration of the FIR and the filing of the chargesheet, the petitioner has filed the present petition for quashing of the FIR. It has been asserted that the bank filed a civil suit titled Punjab and Sindh Bank versus Disha against the petitioner for the recovery of Rs. 1,82,874/- along with interest. The matter was taken up by the National Lok Adalat and was withdrawn by the bank on 10.04.2021. The total amount was paid by the petitioner, and nothing was due. The offence punishable under Section 420 of the IPC is compoundable, whereas the other offences of forgery are non-compoundable. The matter is fundamentally of a civil nature with some criminal attributes to it. The bank has withdrawn the civil suit, and nothing is due towards the bank. The continuation of the proceedings will amount to an abuse of the process of the Court. Therefore, it was prayed that the present petition be allowed and the FIR and consequential proceedings arising out of the FIR be quashed.

5. The petition is opposed by the respondent/State by filing a rep