LexANIL BHAVARLAL JAIN & ANR. versus THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2024] 12 S.C.R. 1436 : 2024 INSC 1039 Anil Bhavarlal Jain & Anr. v. The State of Maharashtra & Ors. (Criminal Appeal No(s). 5581-5582 of 2024) 20 December 2024 [Vikram Nath and Prasanna B. Varale,* JJ.] Issue for Consideration Whether criminal proceedings can be quashed on the basis of a settlement arrived at between the parties on the consent terms drawn and submitted before the Debt Recovery Tribunal. Headnotes† CrPC – s.482 – FIR and chargesheet filed against Appellants for offences punishable under Sections 409, 420 and 120B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 along with Section 13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 – High Court rejected petition under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 to quash FIR and chargesheet – Appeals dismissed – High Court justified in not exercising powers under Section 482: Held: FIR and chargesheet filed against Appellants for offences punishable under Sections 409, 420 and 120B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (“IPC”) along with Section 13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (“PC Act”) – Appellants preferred writ petition in High Court for quashing of FIR and chargesheet under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (“CrPC”) – High Court rejected the petition observing that alternative remedy under CrPC available to Appellants – High Court’s order challenged – Appeals dismissed – Previous proceedings before Debt Recovery Tribunal (“DRT”), wherein the parties filed consent terms and agreed to a one-time settlement cannot be grounds for quashing criminal proceedings – Substantial injury caused to the public exchequer and consequently public interest has been hampered – Quashing of offences under the PC Act would have a grave and substantial impact not just on the parties involved, but also on the society at large – High Court justified in not exercising powers under Section 482. *Author [2024] 12 S.C.R. 1437 Anil Bhavarlal Jain & Anr. v. The State of Maharashtra & Ors. Criminal proceedings – Quashing of – On basis of settlement – Scope – Gian Singh v State of Punjab relied on – offences of mental depravity under IPC or offences of moral turpitude under special statutes like PC Act or offences committed by the public servants while working in that capacity, settlement between offender and victim has no legal sanction. Parbatbhai Aahir v. State of Gujrat & Anr relied on – economic offences affecting financial and economic well-being of the state have implications which lie beyond the domain of a mere dispute between the private disputants – economic offences stand on a different footing than other offences. State v. R Vasanthi relied on – grave criminal offence or serious economic offence or for that matter the offence that has the potentiality to create a dent in the financial health of the institutions is not to be quashed on the ground of delay in trial or on the basis of settlement of matter by the parties. [Para 13-15, 16,17] Case Law Cited Gian Singh v. State of Punjab [2012] 8 SCR 753: (2012) 10 SCC 303 – relied on. Parbatbhai Aahir v. State of Gujrat & Anr., 2017 SCC Online SC 1189; State v. R Vasanthi Stanley, 2015 SSC Online SC 815 – referred to. List of Acts Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Penal Code, 1860; Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. List of Keywords Quashing of FIR and chargesheet; Alternate remedy; Non performing asset; One-time settlement; Diverted funds; Economic offences. Case Arising From CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal No. 5581 of 2024 From the Judgment and Order dated 26.07.2023 of the High Court of Judicature at Bombay in CRLWP No. 2546 of 2022 With Criminal Appeal No. 5582 of 2024 1438 [2024] 12 S.C.R. Supreme Court Reports Appearances for Parties Ms. Malvika Trivedi, Siddharth Bhatnagar Sr. Advs., Mahinder Singh Hura, Jasmeet Singh, Saif Ali, Pushpendra Singh Bhadoriya, Vijay Sharma, Pranav Menon, Ms. Ranjeeta Rohatgi, Vivek Punjabi, Ms. Shrika Gautam, Advs. for the Appellants. Mrs. Sonia Mathur, Sr. Adv., Samrat Krishnarao Shinde, Siddharth Dharmadhikari, Aaditya Aniruddha Pande, Bharat Bagla, Sourav Singh, Aditya Krishna, Ms. Preet S. Phanse, Adarsh Dubey, Mukesh Kumar Maroria, Mrs. Noor Rampal, Digvijay Dam, Shantanu Sharma, Mrs. Sakshi Kakkar, Sanjay Kr. Tyagi, Sanjay Kapur, Surya Prakash, Ms. Isha Virmani, Mrs. Shubhra Kapur, Ms. Mahima Kapur, Advs. for the Respondents. Judgment/Order of the Supreme Court Judgment P
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.