Criminal Prosecution Unsustainable After Approved Loan Settlement Having the Imprimatur of the Debts Recovery Tribunal

The Appellants (Proprietor and Firm) availed credit facilities from UCO Bank between 2006 and 2009.

Following the death of the original manager, the account was declared a Non-Performing Asset (NPA) in 2010, leading the Bank to initiate recovery proceedings before the Debts Recovery Tribunal (DRT).

On 30.03.2015, the parties entered into a compromise settlement for ₹4.25 crores, which the Bank’s Management Committee approved.

The DRT recorded this settlement, and upon full payment, the Bank issued a "No Dues Certificate" on 30.09.2015.

Two and a half years later, the Bank lodged a complaint with the CBI alleging that the Appellants had induced the Bank to enhance credit limits using forged audit reports and substituted valuable security with encroached land.

The CBI filed a chargesheet under Sections 420 and 471 of the IPC, but dropped corruption charges against Bank officials.

The High Court of Chhattisgarh refused to quash the proceedings, leading to this appeal.

The Court applied the principles of inherent powers under Section 482 of the CrPC to prevent the abuse of the process of law.

The Court relied on Nikhil Merchant v. CBI, which held that technicalities should not prevent quashing where a dispute has been settled and the criminal facets are secondary to the commercial dispute.

The court applied the three-judge bench ruling in Gian Singh v. State of Punjab, which established that while heinous crimes cannot be quashed, cases with "overwhelmingly and predominantly civil flavour" arising from commercial or financial transactions should be quashed upon settlement.

The Court also integrated the guidelines from Parbatbhai Aahir v. State of Gujarat regarding the distinction between private disputes and economic offences affecting the State.

The court applied K. Bharthi Devi v. State of Telangana, which quashed proceedings involving alleged forged documents once the Bank issued a "No Dues Certificate".

The Court reasoned that the dispute was essentially a commercial transaction with an "essentially civil flavour".

The Court noted that the Bank’s conduct lacked good faith, as the Bank had certified during the compromise that there were "no lapses in documentation" as per its 2009 legal audit.

The Court observed that the Bank waited over two years after receiving the full settlement amount and withdrawing the DRT case before alleging fraud—a delay that suggested the criminal case was an afterthought.

Since the CBI found no "proactive role" or criminal misconduct by Bank officials, the Court determined that the possibility of convicting only the borrower under Sections 420 and 471 was "remote and bleak".

Justice Bhuyan emphasized that allowing such a prosecution would undermine the "sanctity of settlements" and discourage the resolution of commercial disputes, thereby harming the overall economy.

The holding specifies that where a dispute is predominantly civil/commercial and the parties have achieved a finality through a court-endorsed settlement (DRT), the criminal proceedings must be quashed to secure the ends of justice.

The Supreme Court allowed the appeal and set aside the High Court’s order, quashing the chargesheet dated 27.11.2018 and the charge-framing order dated 20.02.2023.