The Supreme Court, recognizing that economic offences differ significantly from other crimes and have broader consequences, declined to quash a corruption case based on a settlement between the accused and the bank.
The Court noted that the Bank had incurred a loss of approximately Rs. 6.13 Crores and ruled that the settlement terms recorded during the DRT proceedings cannot absolve the offence committed. It observed that a significant injury to the public exchequer occurred, undermining public interest. The Court emphasized that the invocation of the Prevention of Corruption (PC) Act in this case meant that quashing the case would have severe repercussions not only for the parties involved but for society as a whole.
The Bench, consisting of Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Prasanna B Varale, was reviewing an appeal challenging the Bombay High Court’s dismissal of the quashing petition related to a fraud, cheating, and corruption case.
The appellants, Directors of M/s Sun Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. and employees of the State Bank of India (SBI), faced charges of fund diversion, fraudulent collateral valuation, and irregular loan repayment. They argued that the settlement with the bank at the DRT proceedings should lead to the case being quashed. However, the Respondents contended that a settlement could not override criminal cases involving societal interests.
Affirming the High Court’s decision, Justice Varale, in his judgment, cited the Parbatbhai Aahir vs State of Gujarat (2017) case, underlining that economic offences, due to their financial impact and the potential harm to public resources, have more extensive societal implications and cannot be dismissed lightly.
The Court concluded that economic offences stand apart from other crimes due to their far-reaching consequences, which can severely affect the country’s financial stability and public trust. Dismissing the appeal, the Court upheld the High Court’s decision to refrain from exercising jurisdiction under Section 482 of the CrPC.
Appearance:
- For Petitioner(s): Ms. Malvika Trivedi, Sr. Adv., Mr. Mahinder Singh Hura, Adv., and others.
- For Respondent(s): Mr. Samrat Krishnarao Shinde, Adv., Mrs. Sonia Mathur, Sr. Adv., and others.
Case Title: ANIL BHAVARLAL JAIN & ANR. VERSUS THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ORS.
