STATE, REP. BY INSPECTOR OF POLICE CENTRAL CRIME BRANCH versus R. VASANTHI STANLEY &ANR.

Citation: [2015] 9 S.C.R. 772 · Decided: 15-09-2015 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: DIPAK MISRA · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
Cited by 3 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

[2015] 9 S.C.R. 772 
A 
STATE, REP. BY INSPECTOR OF POLICE CENTRAL 
B 
c 
CRIME BRANCH 
v. 
R. VASANTHI STANLEY &ANR. 
(Criminal Appeal Nos.2006-2009 of 2014) 
SEPTEMBER 15, 2015 
[Of PAK MISRA AND PRAFULLA C. PANT, JJ.] 
Code of Criminal Procedure, 19 73: s. 482 - Quashing of 
criminal proceedings - Charge sheet filed against the first 
respondent on the ground that she along with her husband 
by forging documents obtained loans from various banks -
s.482 application filed before the High Court - During 
o pendency of the matter, the husband of the first respondent 
died - Plea of first respondent that after demise of her 
husband, she came to know about the cas~s pending against 
her due to the alleged involvement of her husband and that 
she being lady was following the command of her husband 
E and signed the documents without being aware about the 
transactions entered into by the husband and nature of the 
business and that immediately she had take!} necessary 
steps to settle the entire dues of the banks and, therefore, 
there was no justification for continuance of the criminal 
F proceedin'gs - High Court quashed the proceedings- Held: 
.G 
H 
High Court erred in quashing the proceedings -
The 
assertions as regards the ignorance are a mere .pretence 
and sans substance given the facts - Lack of awareness, 
knowledge or intent is neither to be considered nor accepted 
in economic offence -: An offence under the criminal law is 
an offence and it does not depend upon the gender of an 
accused- Moreover proceedings cannot be quashed on the 
ground that the accused settled the amount with the bank. 
772 
STATE, REP. BY INSPECTOR OF POLICE CCB v. R. 
773 
VASANTHI STANLEY 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
A 
HELD: 1. A person committing a murder or getting 
involved in a financial scam or forgery of documents, 
cannot claim discharge or acquittal on the ground of her 
gender as that is neither constitutionally nor statutorily B 
a valid argument. The offence is gender neutral in this 
case. A 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 notto be quashed on the ground thatthere C 
is delay in trial or the principle that when the matter has 
been settled it should be quashed to avoid the load on 
the system. That can never be an acceptable principle 
or parameter, for that would amount to destroying the 
stem cells of law and order in many a realm and further D 
strengthen the marrows of the unscrupulous litigations. 
[Paras 13, 14] [787-E-H; 788-A] 
Janta Dal v. H. S. Chowdhary 1992 (1) Suppl. SCR 226: 
(1992) 4 SCC 305; CBI v. Maninder Singh 2015 (9) SCALE E 
365; State of Maharashtra through CBI v. Vikram Anantrai 
Doshi and others 2014 (10) SCALE 690 - relied on. 
Nikhil Merchant v. Central Bureau of Investigation 2008 
(12) SCR 236: (2008) 9 SCC 677; Manoj Sharma v. State F 
and others 2008 (14) SCR 539: (2008) 16 sec 1; State of 
Kamataka v. L. MunesM1amy 1977 (3) SCR 113: (1977) 2 
SCC 699; Madhvrao Jiwajirao Scindia and others v. 
Sambhajirao Chandrojirao Angre and others 1988 (2) SCR 
930: (1988) 1 SCC 692; Hira Lal Hari Lal Bhagwati v. C.B. I., 
G 
New Delhi (2002) 5 SCC 257; Shiji@ Pappu and other~ v. 
Radhika and another 2011 (13) SCR 135: (2011) 10 SCC 
705; Sushi/ Suri v. CBI and Anr. 2011 (8) SCR 1: (2011) 5 
SCC 708; CBI v. A. Ravishankar Prasad and others (2009) 
6 SCC 351; CBI v. Duncans Agro Industries Ltd. (1996) 5 H 
774 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2015] 9 S.C.R. 
A SCC 581; lnder Mohan Goswami v. State of Uttaranchal 2007 
(10) SCR 847: (2007) 12 SCC 1; Gian Singh v. State of 
Punjab andAnother2012 (8) SCR 753: (2012) 10 SCC 303; 
Narinder Singh & Ors. v. State of Punjab & Anr. 2014 (4) 
SCR 1012: (2014) 6 SCC 466; Dimpy Gujral v. Union 
B Territory through Administrator AIR 2012 SCW 5333; State 
ofRajasthan v. Sambhu Kevat2013 (14) SCALE 235; CBI, 
ACB, Mumbai v. Narendra Lal Jain & Ors. 2014 (3) SCR 
444: (2014) 5 SCC 364; Central Bureau of Investigation v. 
c Jagjit Singh 2013 (17) SCR 361: (2013) 1 o sec 686 -
referred to. 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
Case Law Reference 
2008 (12) SCR 236 
2008 (14) SCR 539 
1977 (3) SCR 113 
1988 (2) SCR 930 
(2002) 5 sec 257 
2011 (13) SCR 135 
2011 (8) SCR 1 
referred to. 
referred to. 
referred to. 
referred to. 
referred to. 
referred to. 
referred to. 
2014 (10) SCALE 690 
relied on. 
(2009) 6 sec 351 
referred to. 
(1996) 5 sec 581 
.20
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.