<\/p>\n
Overview<\/b><\/p>\n
In this case, the Supreme Court examined whether criminal proceedings, when it comes to forgery and cheating, can be continued after a dispute has already been settled through a compromise approved by the Debt Recovery Tribunal (DRT).\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n The appeal arose from an order passed by the High Court of Chhattisgarh, refusing to quash proceedings initiated against the appellants by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI).<\/span><\/p>\n The dispute involved an account maintained with UCO Bank. Although the parties had entered into a final settlement, and the bank issued a no-dues certificate after receiving the amount, the criminal proceedings were still initiated years later, alleging fraud in obtaining the loan facilities. The Court had to determine whether continuing such proceedings was justified in the circumstances of the matter.<\/span><\/p>\n <\/p>\n Facts of the Case<\/b><\/p>\n M\/s Mohan Traders secured various credit facilities from UCO Bank between 2006 to 2009. These facilities were obtained by mortgage properties, and the limits were extended time to time after proper inspection by bank-approved officials. The business suffered from financial difficulties after the death of one of the key partners and the account was classified as a Non-Performing Asset.<\/span><\/p>\n Recovery proceedings were initiated by the bank before the DRT. While those proceedings were still pending, the parties arrived at a compromise under which the dues were settled for \u20b94.25 crores. This was approved by the competent authorities of the bank and was placed before the DRT. The entire settlement amount was paid by the appellants after which a no-dues certificate was issued by the bank. Following the same, it was recorded by the DRT that the liability was discharged, and the proceedings came to an end.<\/span><\/p>\n Two years later, a complaint was lodged by the bank while alleging that the appellants obtained benefits through forged documents and by offering defective collateral security. Based on the same, the CBI registered a case and a charge sheet was filed under Section 420 and 471 of the Indian Penal Code.\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n Soon thereafter, the appellants sought quashing of the proceeding before the High Court of Chhattisgarh. Upon the dismissal of the same, the appellant then approached the Supreme Court by way of the present criminal appeal.\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n <\/p>\n Legal Issues<\/b><\/p>\n <\/p>\n Decision<\/b><\/p>\n The appeal was allowed by the Supreme Court and the criminal proceedings were quashed. It was observed by the Court that the dispute arose from a commercial transaction that had already been settled in its entirety voluntarily. It was also noted that the settlement had been accepted by the bank and was recognised by the DRT.\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n The Court found it relevant to note that the bank was satisfied with the compromise, despite being aware of the circumstances over which the criminal complaint was later filed. Having accepted the amount as to the settlement and the certified closure of the account, the bank could not seek to revive the dispute through criminal proceedings.\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n While holding that the chances of conviction were very remote, and that continuing such proceedings would serve no purpose, it was concluded by the Court that allowing the prosecution to continue would be an abuse of the process of law. Accordingly, all criminal proceedings along with the charge sheet were set aside.<\/span><\/p>\n\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" Vijay Kumar Kela & Anr.\u00a0 \u200b Vs.\u00a0 Central Bureau of Investigation & Anr.\u00a0 CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 2974 OF 2026 \u00a0(DB, Before Ujjal Bhuyan and B.V. Nagarathna JJ.) Overview In this case, the Supreme Court examined whether criminal proceedings, when it comes to forgery and cheating, can be continued after a dispute has already been […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":3794,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[12],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-3792","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-judgement"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/xpertslegal.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/3792","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/xpertslegal.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/xpertslegal.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/xpertslegal.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/xpertslegal.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=3792"}],"version-history":[{"count":2,"href":"https:\/\/xpertslegal.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/3792\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":3796,"href":"https:\/\/xpertslegal.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/3792\/revisions\/3796"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/xpertslegal.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/3794"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/xpertslegal.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=3792"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/xpertslegal.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=3792"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/xpertslegal.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=3792"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}\n