Karnataka HC Notices Sri Lankan Judge's Rights Plea
07 Mar 2026
Karnataka Proposes Social Media Ban for Under-16s
07 Mar 2026
Justice Dharmadhikari Sworn In as 55th Madras HC Chief Justice
07 Mar 2026
Punjab HC Acquits Ram Rahim in Journalist Murder
07 Mar 2026
Appellate Courts Can Rely on Unexhibited Public Documents Produced by Plaintiff: Gujarat High Court Dismisses Second Appeal Under Section 100 CPC
07 Mar 2026
Punjab & Haryana HC Denies Anticipatory Bail in Murder via Humiliation Case: Sections 103(1) & 3(5) BNS
07 Mar 2026
Security Deposit Forfeiture Without Show-Cause Notice Violates Natural Justice: Himachal Pradesh High Court
07 Mar 2026
S.202 CrPC Inquiry Not Mandatory for Public Servant Complaints If Accused Outside Jurisdiction: Supreme Court
09 Mar 2026
Professor MP Singh: Shaper of Constitutional Discourse
09 Mar 2026
Back
Next 
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD
THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE TIRUMALA DEVI EADA
Sri. Nadimpally Venkata Subba Raju alias NV Subbaraju – Appellant
Versus
The State of Telangana – Respondent
THE HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE TIRUMALA DEVI EADA
ORDER:
This criminal petition is filed seeking to quash the proceedings in CC No.12 of 2021 against the petitioners- accused Nos.2 & 3 on the file of I-Additional Special Judge for CBI Cases, Hyderabad at Nampally, for the offences under Sections 120B read with 420, 409, 468 and 471 IPC and Section 13(2) read with 13 (1) (c) and (d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.
2. Heard Mr.T. Raghava Charyulu, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr. T. Srujan Kumar Reddy, learned Standing Counsel for CBI for respondent No.1.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the Bank has come forward for One Time Settlement (OTS) and once OTS is accepted, the criminal proceedings cannot be initiated in view of the judgment of the Hon’be Apex Court in Tarina Sen v. Union of India, (2024) 10 SCR 417
One Time Settlement can quash criminal proceedings in cases lacking evidence of fraud or forgery.
Serious economic offences, such as forgery and corruption, cannot be quashed based on private settlements due to their impact on society and public interest.
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.
Redundant criminal proceedings should not be allowed to continue.
Economic offences cannot be quashed based on settlement due to their serious implications for public interest.
Criminal proceedings under the Prevention of Corruption Act cannot be quashed based on civil settlements, emphasizing the need for trial completion.
The court emphasized that economic offences involving the financial and economic well-being of the State have implications beyond private disputes, and the gravity of such offences must be considered....
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
Listen Article