Compromise - The Legal Chamber

The Supreme Court held that criminal proceedings involving serious economic offences, especially those under the Prevention of Corruption Act, cannot be quashed merely because a financial settlement or one-time settlement has been reached with the bank. Such offences constitute a crime against society at large, and quashing would be contrary to the interests of justice. Facts Of The Case: An FIR was registered in 2015 following a complaint by the State Bank of Bikaner and Jaipur. The bank alleged that M/s Sarvodaya Highways Ltd. had fraudulently secured credit facilities of ₹60 crores by submitting fabricated work orders and financial statements to project a false financial standing. An internal inquiry later declared the account a Non-Performing Asset, uncovering an alleged fraud of...

The Supreme Court disposed of appeals concerning allegations under Sections 376, 406, and 506 of the IPC by facilitating a settlement. The Court directed the appellant to deposit a specified sum with the Trial Court and gold ornaments with the High Court Registrar for release to the prosecutrix, thereby resolving the disputes. Facts Of The Case: The case originates from an FIR registered against the appellant-accused based on a complaint filed by the second respondent, the prosecutrix. She alleged that the accused, who was assisting her with ongoing divorce proceedings, forcefully subjected her to sexual intercourse in December 2017 under the threat of disseminating her photographs. Subsequently, on multiple occasions in 2018, he established a physical relationship with her on the false ...

Tag: Compromise

Public vs. Private Wrong: Supreme Court Explains Why Bank Fraud Cases Can’t Be Quashed Just Because Bank Settled