settlement - The Legal Chamber

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

2Feb

By The Legal ChamberNo Comments

Supreme Court

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

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...

Divorce Final, But Alimony Increased: Supreme Court Orders Doctor to Pay Engineer-Turned-Lawyer ₹50 Lakhs

The Supreme Court enhanced permanent alimony from ₹15 to ₹50 lakhs, balancing the husband's capacity to pay against the wife's qualifications and potential to earn. The ruling underscores that alimony is not merely sustenance but must provide financial security commensurate with the marital standard of living. Facts Of The Case: The case involves an appeal by the wife, M.V. Leelavathi, against a Karnataka High Court order that upheld the dissolution of her marriage to Dr. C.R. Swamy on grounds of cruelty and confirmed a permanent alimony award of ₹15,00,000. The couple married in February 2009 and the marriage remained childless. The husband, a doctor, filed for divorce in 2011 alleging mental cruelty. The wife contested the petition and filed a counterclaim for restitution of conjugal r...

No Endless Cases: Supreme Court Uses Special Power to End Dowry Case After Couple Divorced

The Supreme Court quashed criminal proceedings under Sections 498A/34 IPC and Sections 3/4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act against the father-in-law, invoking Article 142 of the Constitution. The Court held that continuing prosecution after divorce and in the absence of specific, timely allegations amounted to an abuse of the process of law. Facts Of The Case: The marriage between the complainant (Respondent No. 2) and the appellant’s son was solemnized in December 2017. By May 2019, marital discord arose, leading the wife to leave the matrimonial home and allege mental and physical cruelty. Both parties attended police-led counselling sessions, which resulted in an agreement to remarry through Hindu rites. However, the wife soon left again and, in July 2019, filed an FIR alleging that her ...