Brief Facts
On 14th October 2000, a regular case under section 154 of CrPC was registered against all 5 accused alleging commission of offences punishable under section 120-B, 420, 468 and 471 of IPC 1860 and section 13(2) and 13(1)(d) of prevention of corruption act 1988.
It was alleged that accused 1 while being on the post of branch manager in Allahabad bank, did a criminal conspiracy with accused 2-5. 2 separate loans were sanctioned to accused (2,3) & accused (4,5) by accused 1 for purchasing vehicles without keeping any post-dated cheques or securities.
The matter was taken up for investigation by CBI and case was registered in court of special judge, Bhubneswar.
Later the firm of accused 4 and 5 (clarion travels) reached one-time-settlement with bank and subsequently filed separate applications under section 482 of Cr.P.C before orrissa high court seeking to quash all proocedings pending before the trial court which was dismissed by the high court.
Being aggrieved by the order of high court, the present appeal is filed by accused 4 and 5 before hon’ble Supreme Court of India.
Issues
Whether criminal proceedings against the borrower be quashed on the ground of compromise between the Bank and the Borrower?
Held
Present appeal is allowed and the order of the Orissa high court at Cuttack is quashed and set aside and the criminal proceedings against the appellants pending in the court of special judge (CBI) is also quashed and set aside.
The Hon’ble Supreme Court relying on the earlier judgements held that in the matter arising out of commercial, financial, mercantile, civil, partnership or such like transactions or the offences arising out of matrimony relating to dowry, etc. or family disputes where the wrong is basically private or personal in nature and the parties have resolved their entire dispute, the high court should exercise its powers under section 482 Cr.P.C for giving an end to the criminal proceedings.
In case of K.Bharthi devi v. State of Telangana (2024) wherein similar facts arose for consideration, court held that when the matter has been compromised between the borrower and Bank, the continuation of the criminal proceedings would not be justifiable.
Court held that possibility of conviction in Such cases is remote and bleak and as such, the continuation of the criminal proceedings would put the accused to great oppression and prejudice.
Relevant Paras
- 14,15,16