Alternative Remedies No Longer Bar Writs Writ Jurisdiction in the Indian Constitution has been borrowed from the concept of prerogative writs under English Law and was vested in the Chartered High Courts prior to commencement of Constitution. The framers of the Constitution adopted the concept of writs and funnelled such powers to fruitfully enforce the fundamental rights... Read More
In this Criminal Appeal, the Supreme Court quashed criminal proceedings, quashing charges u/s 120-B, 420, 468 and 471 of Indian Penal Code 1860 & S.13(2) r/with 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act 1988 and held that continuing the criminal trial would cause great oppression & prejudice, when the appellants had played no active role in the conspiracy and since the matter had already been financially settled.
The appellants were alleged to be involved in a conspiracy to fraudulently secure loans from Allahabad Bank through their firm, Clarion Travels, in collusion with several others. They had loans sanctioned without proper security, which they failed to repay and the bank incurred financial losses. In 2011, a One-Time Settlement was reached between the borrowers and the bank, and the loan was fully repaid, post which the Original Application filed before the DRT was disposed. The appellants, both women are wives of the principal accused who is now deceased approached the High Court and sought to quash the criminal proceedings, arguing that continuing the case after the settlement would be futile. The High Court rejected their plea directing them to submit their pleadings before the trial court.
The Court relied on precedents like – Central Bureau of Investigation, SPE, SIU (X), New Delhi v. Duncans Agro Industries Ltd., Calcutta (1996) 5 SCC 591, Nikhil Merchant v. Central Bureau of Investigation and another (2008) 9 SCC 677, Gian Singh v. State of Punjab and another (2012) 10 SCC 303 where financial disputes were resolved through settlement justifying the ending criminal of cases, considering the fact that the possibility of conviction was remote in matters arising out of commercial, financial, mercantile, civil, partnership transactions or offences arising out of matrimony or family disputes where the wrong is basically private or personal in nature and the parties have resolved the dispute.