Amicable settlement between parties can justify quashing of criminal proceedings when no grievance remains from the complainant.

SMT ANIMA M., PP, SRI SREELAL N WARRIER, SPL PP, CBI THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON

30.03.2026, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

ORDER

Annexure A2 Final Report filed by SPE:CBI:EOW, Chennai, in RC.5/E/2007/CBI/EOW/Chennai, before the Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Ernakulam, which has been numbered as C.C.No.320/2008, and the further proceedings initiated thereunder, are sought to be quashed by accused Nos.1 and 2 in the aforesaid case, in this petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C.

2. The prosecution case is that the second accused entered into a criminal conspiracy with the other accused, including the bank officials of SBI Overseas Branch, Kochi, to cheat the State Bank of India, and fraudulently indulged in cross drawings of cheques through different bank accounts without any genuine business, and during the rotating process, gradually siphoned off bank’s money, causing wrongful loss to the tune of Rs.3.78 Crores to the State Bank of India.

3. The proceedings are sought to be quashed upon the main ground that the issue has been amicably settled with the second respondent bank by making payment of the entire amount, which has been allegedly siphoned off by the petitioners, along with overdue interest for the belated payment.

4. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Special Public Prosecutor representing the CBI.

5. The Chief Manager and authorised Officer of the State Bank of India, (SARB -I), Palarivattom, has filed an affidavit stating that the bank does not intend to prosecute this case any more, since the entire outstanding amount due from the petitioners have been received from them.

6. The prayer in this petition to quash the proceedings in this case, has been strongly opposed by the learned Special Public Prosecutor, CBI. It is submitted by the learned Public Prosecutor that the mere fact that the accused had made payment, and made good the loss sustained by the bank, will not by itself obliterate the crime involved in this case. It is further submitted that the act of the accused misappropriating public money, cannot be permitted to be condoned by their subsequent conduct of making payment of the money due to the public sector bank, and mitigating the loss sustained by the bank.

7. The learned counsel for the petitioners placed before me for perusal, the decisions of the Hon’ble Apex Court inSuresh C Singal and Others v. State of Gujarat and Others [2025 SCC OnLine SC 788],Bharti Devi K. v. State of Telangana [2024 (10) SCC 384] and CBI, ACB, Mumbai v. Narendra Lal Jain and Others [2014 (5) SCC 364], and pointed out that in identical cases, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that the criminal prosecution launched could be quashed, since the dispute involved is primarily of civil nature. InSuresh C Singal (supra) the Hon’ble Supreme Court has observed in paragraph No.20 of the judgment as follows:

“20. Now, coming to the case in hand, we have already observed that the dispute involved is primarily of civil nature. The aggrieved party, if any, would have been the Bank which has no grievance against the Appellants. Further, no loss has been caused to the Bank as is apparent from the calculations presented by the appellants before this Court. Not only the principal amount has been returned but an amount over and above thereto, on the basis of the settlement, has been received by the Bank. The case is at the very initial stage with the chargesheet having been filed. Keeping in view the observations made by this court in Narinder Singh (supra), in the facts of this case, it can safely be said that the criminal case which has been sought to be projected and proceeded with against the Appellants has an overwhelming