Supreme Court: Economic Offences Cannot Be Quashed Even if a Settlement Exists between the Parties

Introduction

In Anil Bhavarlal Jain & ors v. State of Maharashtra& ors.[i], the Hon’ble Supreme Court examined whether criminal proceedings in economic offence cases could be quashed based on a settlement between the parties. This ruling is significant as it underscores the legal challenges in prosecuting financial misconduct, emphasising the need to balance public accountability with individual justice. The judgment also highlights the broader economic risks posed by such offences, reinforcing their distinct treatment under criminal jurisprudence.

Brief Facts

• In 2013, Sh. Anil Bhavarlal Jain and Anant Keshav Rajegaonkar (‘Appellants’), directors of M/s Sun Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd (‘Company’) obtained a loan of Rs. 50 crores from the State Bank of India (‘Respondent No.3’), mortgaging commercial land as security.

• The Appellants made timely payments until 2017, after which Respondent No. 3 classified the loan account as a non-performing asset (‘NPA’) in November 2017 with an outstanding balance of Rs.23.86 crores.

• Respondent No.3 initiated recovery proceedings before the Debt Recovery Tribunal (‘DRT’) and, in December 2019,  reached a one-time settlement of Rs.15 crores with the Company. Accordingly, the DRT application was disposed of.

• Despite the settlement, Respondent No. 3 lodged a complaint with the Central Bureau of Investigation, Anti-Corruption Bureau, Mumbai (‘Respondent No.2/CBI’)  alleging misappropriation of funds from a separate loan availed from SICOM Ltd. and unauthorised modifications to the building plans, which purportedly reduced the collateral’s value without the bank’s consent.

• On the basis of the complaint made by Respondent No. 3, a First Information Report (‘FIR’) was registered against the Appellants by the CBI, leading to the filing of a chargesheet.

• The Appellants challenged the FIR and chargesheet before the Bombay High Court under s. 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1972 (‘CrPC’) seeking quashing of the proceedings.

• The High Court vide order dated 26.07.2023 (‘Impugned Order’) dismissed the writ petition, observing that the Appellants had an alternative remedy under the CrPC before the Trial Court.

• Aggrieved by the Impugned Order, the Appellants filed a Special Leave Petition (‘SLP’) before the Supreme Court.

Held

• The Supreme Court dismissed the SLP and upheld the decision of the High Court by distinguishing the judgment in Gian Singh v. State of Punjab[ii],* *which was relied upon by the Appellants.

• The Supreme Court reiterated its observations in Parbatbhai Aahir v. State of Gujarat[iii], emphasising that economic offences have broader implications beyond a private dispute between parties.

• Further, the Court relied on the State of T.N v. R. Vasanthi Stanley[iv], where it had declined to quash proceedings in cases involving abuse of the financial system.

• In the present case, the Supreme Court noted that the alleged offences had caused substantial financial loss to Respondent No. 3, impacting the public exchequer and consequently harming the public interest. The Court further held that quashing cases under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (‘PC Act’) would have grave and substantial ramifications not only for the parties involved but for society at large.

Our Analysis

The evolving jurisprudence of the Supreme Court underscores that economic offences are to be treated as a class apart from conventional criminal offences, given their far-reaching impact on the economy and the public exchequer.

In this case, the Court reaffirmed that economic offences involving moral turpitude, such as corruption or acts resulting in wrongful loss to the public exchequer, cannot be quashed merely due to a settlement between parties. The judgment highlights the need to uphold the integrity of the legal process in such cases, considering the potential harm to society and the public interest.

However, this ruling introduces a more nuanced perspective, limiting the scope for quashing economic offences under certain circumstances. It suggests that in cases where prosecution may be politically motivated or wrongful, judicial scrutiny may be warranted to prevent undue incarceration or miscarriage of justice.

End Notes

[i] 2024 SCC OnLine SC 3823.

[ii] (2012) 10 SCC 303.

[iii] (2017) 9 SCC 641.

[iv] (2016) 1 SCC 376.

Authored by Kushagra Gahlot, Advocate at Metalegal Advocates. The views expressed are personal and do not constitute legal opinions.