STATE, REP. BY INSPECTOR OF POLICE CENTRAL CRIME BRANCH versus R. VASANTHI STANLEY &ANR.
[2015] 9 S.C.R. 772, Supreme Court of India, 2015
Outcome: Appeal(s) allowed (Granted)
Segment: Facts
[2015] 9 S.C.R. 772 
A 
STATE, REP. BY INSPECTOR OF POLICE CENTRAL 
B 
c 
CRIME BRANCH 
v. 
R. VASANTHI STANLEY &ANR. 
(Criminal Appeal Nos.2006-2009 of 2014) 
SEPTEMBER 15, 2015 
[Of PAK MISRA AND PRAFULLA C. PANT, JJ.] 
Code of Criminal Procedure, 19 73: s. 482 - Quashing of 
criminal proceedings - Charge sheet filed against the first 
respondent on the ground that she along with her husband 
by forging documents obtained loans from various banks -
s.482 application filed before the High Court - During 
o pendency of the matter, the husband of the first respondent 
died - Plea of first respondent that after demise of her 
husband, she came to know about the cas~s pending against 
her due to the alleged involvement of her husband and that 
she being lady was following the command of her husband 
E and signed the documents without being aware about the 
transactions entered into by the husband and nature of the 
business and that immediately she had take!} necessary 
steps to settle the entire dues of the banks and, therefore, 
there was no justification for continuance of the criminal 
F proceedin'gs - High Court quashed the proceedings- Held: 
.G 
H 
High Court erred in quashing the proceedings -
The 
assertions as regards the ignorance are a mere .pretence 
and sans substance given the facts - Lack of awareness, 
knowledge or intent is neither to be considered nor accepted 
in economic offence -: An offence under the criminal law is 
an offence and it does not depend upon
the gender of an 
accused- Moreover proceedings cannot be quashed on the 
ground that the accused settled the amount with the bank. 
772
STATE, REP. BY INSPECTOR OF POLICE CCB v. R. 
773 
VASANTHI STANLEY 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
A 
HELD: 1. A person committing a murder or getting 
involved in a financial scam or forgery of documents, 
cannot claim discharge or acquittal on the ground of her 
gender as that is neither constitutionally nor statutorily B 
a valid argument. The offence is gender neutral in this 
case. A grave criminal offence or serious economic 
offence or for that matter the offence that has the 
potentiality to create a dent in the financial health of the 
institutions, is notto be quashed on the ground thatthere C 
is delay in trial or the principle that when the matter has 
been settled it should be quashed to avoid the load on 
the system. That can never be an acceptable principle 
or parameter, for that would amount to destroying the 
stem cells of law and order in many a realm and further D 
strengthen the marrows of the unscrupulous litigations. 
[Paras 13, 14] [787-E-H; 788-A] 
Janta Dal v. H. S. Chowdhary 1992 (1) Suppl. SCR 226: 
(1992) 4 SCC 305; CBI v. Maninder Singh 2015 (9) SCALE E 
365; State of Maharashtra through CBI v. Vikram Anantrai 
Doshi and others 2014 (10) SCALE 690 - relied on. 
Nikhil Merchant v. Central Bureau of Investigation 2008 
(12) SCR 236: (2008) 9 SCC 677; Manoj Sharma v. State F 
and others 2008 (14) SCR 539: (2008) 16 sec 1; State of 
Kamataka v. L. MunesM1amy 1977 (3) SCR 113: (1977) 2 
SCC 699; Madhvrao Jiwajirao Scindia and others v. 
Sambhajirao
Chandrojirao Angre and others 1988 (2) SCR 
930: (1988) 1 SCC 692; Hira Lal Hari Lal Bhagwati v. C.B. I., 
G 
New Delhi (2002) 5 SCC 257; Shiji@ Pappu and other~ v. 
Radhika and another 2011 (13) SCR 135: (2011) 10 SCC 
705; Sushi/ Suri v. CBI and Anr. 2011 (8) SCR 1: (2011) 5 
SCC 708; CBI v. A. Ravishankar Prasad and others (2009) 
6 SCC 351; CBI v. Duncans Agro Industries Ltd. (1996) 5 H
774 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2015] 9 S.C.R. 
A SCC 581; lnder Mohan Goswami v. State of Uttaranchal 2007 
(10) SCR 847: (2007) 12 SCC 1; Gian Singh v. State of 
Punjab andAnother2012 (8) SCR 753: (2012) 10 SCC 303; 
Narinder Singh & Ors. v. State of Punjab & Anr. 2014 (4) 
SCR 1012: (2014) 6 SCC 466; Dimpy Gujral v. Union 
B Territory through Administrator AIR 2012 SCW 5333; State 
ofRajasthan v. Sambhu Kevat2013 (14) SCALE 235; CBI, 
ACB, Mumbai v. Narendra Lal Jain & Ors. 2014 (3) SCR 
444: (2014) 5 SCC 364; Central Bureau of Investigation v. 
c Jagjit Singh 2013 (17) SCR 361: (2013) 1 o sec 686 -
referred to. 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
Case Law Reference 
2008 (12) SCR 236 
2008 (14) SCR 539 
1977 (3) SCR 113 
1988 (2) SCR 930 
(2002) 5 sec 257 
2011 (13) SCR 135 
2011 (8) SCR 1 
referred to. 
referred to. 
referred to. 
referred to. 
referred to. 
referred to. 
referred to. 
2014 (10) SCALE 690 
relied on. 
(2009) 6 sec 351 
referred to. 
(1996) 5 sec 581 
.2007 (10) SCR 847 
2012 (8) SCR 753 
2014 (4) SCR 1012 
referred to. 
referred to. 
referred to. 
referred to. 
Para 3 
Para 3 
Para 3. 
Para 3 
Para 3 
Para 3 
Para 3 
Para 8 
Para 8 
Para 8 
Para 8 
Para 9 
Para 9
STATE, REP. BY INSPECTOR OF POLICE. CCB v. R. 
775 
VASANTHI STANLEY 
AIR 2012 sew 5333 
referred to. 
Para 9 
A 
2013 (14) SCALE 235 
referred to. 
Para 9 
2014 (3) SCR 444 
referred to. 
Para 9 
2013 (17) SCR 361 
referred to. 
Para 10 
B 
2015 (9) SCALE 365 
relied on. 
Para 11 
. 
1992 (1) Suppl. SCR 226 relied on. 
Para 12 
CRIMINALAPPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal c 
Nos. 2006-2009 of 2014. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 24.01.2012 of the 
High Court of Madras in Crl. O.P. {MO) Nos. 14759 to 14762 
of2011. 
D 
Subramonium Prasad, M. Yogesh Kanna, Jayant Patel 
for the Appella11t. 
Vivek Tankha, Kumanan, Senthil Jagadeesan, Shruti Iyer, 
Govind Manoharan, Suchitra Kumbhat, Jinendra Jain, Puneet 
E 
Taneja, Shaheen, Sudarsh Menon for the Respondents. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
DIPAK MISRA, J. 1. The seminal issues that emanate F 
for consideration, unequivocally on the bedrock of fiscal 
sanctity and decidedly on the plinth of prevalent mindset of 
borrowers from public financial institutions including banks, are 
whether a borrower or borrowers after availing finance by 
G 
creating mortgage on the base of certain documents which, 
as alleged, are forged, and ingeniously adopt the same modus 
.. 
operandi to avail the benefit from number of banks, who in 
due course facing the problerrrset the criminal law in motion 
by lodging different Fl Rs and in the ultimate eventuate in an H 
adroit manrier enter into settlements and pay the amount and ·
776 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2015] 9 S.C.R. 
A thereafter, knock at the doors of the High Court seeking 
exercise of inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code 
of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) or the extraordinary jurisdiction 
under Article 226 of the Constitution for quashment of the 
criminal proceedings; a11d should the High Court on the 
B foundation that the continuance of the criminal proceedings. 
would be a Sisyphean endeavour after the settlement has taken 
place to quash the same; and further whether a former Assistant 
Commissioner of Commercial Taxes can be allowed to 
advance a plea, obviously a remarkable one, that she had 
C signed the documents either as a guarantor or as a co-
applicant, showing deference to her late husband's desire; and, 
therefore, this Court, in exercise of power under Article 136 of 
the Constitution, should not unsettle the common order by which 
D the High Court has quashed criminal proceedings. Additionally, 
it has also become obligatory to decisively lay down whether 
continuance of such proceedings would be an unnecessary 
load on the criminal justice dispensation system and hence, 
there is neither any warrant nor justification for interference 
E with the order of the High Court. We are invited by the astute 
proponements to dwell upon the said issues, and we shall do 
so in due course of our delineation. 
2. The fadual narrative has a narrow compass. The first 
F respondent, accused no.2, along with her husband submitted
an application for home loan to the Centurion Bank of Punjab, 
presently known as HDFC Bank Ltd. for a sum of Rs.6 lakhs 
by depositing the sale deed dated 31.10.2001. The HDFC 
Bank found that documents were forged and accordingly filed 
G a complaint with the Commissioner of Police, Chennai on 
20.12.2005 which eventually gave rise to registration of FIR 
No. 579/06 dated 19. 7.2006. Another FIR came to be lodged 
on 3.8 .. 2006 by Bank of India, qathedral Branch from which 
the couple had availed a loan of Rs.25 lakhs for a Company 
H Development (Medicrops and Medige!) on the grounds that
•• 
STATE, REP. BY INSPECTOR OF POLICE CCB v. R. 
777 
VASANTHI STANLEY [DIPAK MISRA, J.] 
the documents were forged. On 10.7.2006, Vijaya Bank, GN. A 
Chetty Road Branch filed a complaint that the husband of the 
accused had applied for a mortgage loan of Rs.18 lakhs with 
forged documents by depositing the title deed and the wife 
stood as a surety. Taking into consideration the complaints 
lodged by the aforesaid banks, the Inspector of Police, Central 
B 
Crime Branch, Team-XII, Egmore Chennai, registered the FIRs 
and commenced the investigation. When the matter stood thus, 
the Syndicate Bank, Mylapore Branch filed a complaint with 
the Commissioner of Police, Chennai on 11.01.2007 to the 
effect that the husband of the first respondent herein had C 
submitted an application for grant of honie improvement loan 
for a sum of Rs.12 lakhs with forged documents and the wife 
was the guarantor and on that basis another FIR was registered 
and investigation took place. Thus, the first respondent was D 
a co-applicant in respect of the loans availed from HDFC Bank 
and Bank of India and was a guarantor in respect of the loans 
availed from Vijaya Bank and Syndicate Bank. FIR Nos. in 
respect of HDFC Bank, Bank of India, Vijaya Bank and 
Syndicate Bank were 579/06, 643/06, 550/06 and 206/07 E 
respectively. After due investigation, chargesheets were filed 
before the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore, Chennai 
and Metropolitan Magistrate, Saidepet, Chennai and the
proceedings before the trial court were instituted bearing CC 
No. 1624/2010, CC No. 5669/2010, CC No. 6258/2010 and F 
CC No. 11697/2010. 
3. After placing of the chargesheets, the accused persons 
moved the High Court in Criminal OP No. 14759-14762 of 
2011 for quashing of the criminal proceedings. During the G 
pendency of the cases, the husband, accused No.1 breathed 
his last and thereafter before the High Court it was contended 
that she was not aware of any transaction done by her husband 
as she was working as a public servant and that apart she 
was not aware of the business activities carried on by her H
778 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2015] 9 S.C.R. 
A 
husband; that she had signed the documents as instructed by 
her husband without any intention or knowledge to cheat the 
banks; that after demise of her husband, she had come to know 
about the cases pending against her due to the alleged 
involvement of her husband and immediately she had taken 
B necessary steps to settle the entire dues of the banks and, 
therefore, there was no justification for continuance of the 
criminal proceedings. The stand and stance put forth by the 
accused person was combated bi the prosecution on the 
c 
ground that she was in employment in Commercial Tax 
Department ir:i the n~mk of Assistant Commissioner and had 
availed voluntary retirement and hence, she could not claim 
ignorance of the transaction despite being a co-applicant to 
the loans by executing the pronotes jointly along with her 
D husband as a borrower and being a guarantor in respect of 
the loans availed of by her husband from two banks. The 
quashment of the criminal proceedings was also resisted by 
the respondent Bank in Criminal O.P. No. 14762 of2011 that 
certain loan availed of by her husband had remained unpaid 
E and One Time Settlement was arrived at without prejudice to 
the rights regarding pending cases against her before the 
learned 11 1h Metropolitan Magistrate, Saidapet, Chennai. 
Learned counsel for the accused had placed reliance on Nikhil 
Merchant v. Central Bureau of lnvestigation1, Manoj 
F 
Sharma v.
State and others2, State of Karnataka v. L. 
Muneswamy3, Madhvrao Jiwajirao Scindia and others v. 
Sambhajirao Chandrojirao Angre and others4, Hira Lal 
Hari Lal Bhagwati v. C.B.I., New Deihl', and Shiji @Pappu 
and others v. Radhika and another6 before the High Court 
G 
1 (2008) 9 sec 677 
2 (2008) 16 sec 1 
3 (1977) 2 sec 699 
•
• (1988) 1 sec 692 
H 
• (2002) 5 sec 257 
• (2011) 10 sec 705
STATE, REP. BY INSPECTOR OF POLICE CCB v. R. 
779 
VASANTHI STANLEY [DIPAK MISRA, J.] 
for quashing of the criminal proceedings. On behalf of the · A 
prosecution, reliance was placed on Sushi/ Suri v. CBI and 
Anr.7 
4. The High Court adverted to the authorities cited at the 
Bar and thereafter came to hold that as "No due certificate" 
B 
had been issued by the respective banking institutions and 
further settlements had been arrived at under the scheme, 
continuance of the prosecution would be an exercise in futility 
and, therefore, quashing of the criminal proceedings was 
required to prevent the abuse of the process of law. Being of C 
this view, the High ~ourt has quashed all the proceedings. 
5. We have heard Mr. Subramonium Prasad, learned 
senior counsel for the appellant and Mr. Vivek Tankha, learned 
senior counsel for the first respondent. 
o 
6. It is submitted by Mr. Subramonium Prasad, learned 
senior counsel for the State that regard being had to the facts 
and circumstances of the case, it was absolutely inapposite 
on the part of the High Court to quash the criminal proceedings E 
as the allegation by the prosecution pertain to availing of loan 
by depositing documents which were forged. It is urged by 
him that the plea taken by the respondent-accused that she 
was unaware of any transaction does not remotely appeal to 
the common sense and, in any case, such a plea cannot be F 
entertained for the purpose of quashing criminal cases. It is 
further urged
that even if there are settlements and dues have 
been cleared, in such type of cases the accused cannot be 
absolved from the criminal culpability without the trial taking 
place. 
G 
7. Resisting the aforesaid submissions it is canvassed 
by Mr. Tankha, learned senior counsel for the first respondent 
that when the High Court, considering the controversy from all 
1 c2011) 5 sec ?OB 
H
780 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2015) 9 S.C.R. 
A the requisite angles has quashed the proceedings, this Court 
should not interfere with the impugned order in exercise of its 
jurisdiction under Article 136 of the Constitution. Learned 
senior counsel would contend that when the respondent has 
already paid the amount due to the Bank from her own savings 
B and settled the matter with grieved financial institutions, 
continuance of the criminal proceeding is not desirable as it is 
unlikely to serve any fruitful purpose. That apart, submits Mr. 
Tankha, continuation of the proceeding would unnecessarily 
load the criminal justice dispensation system as there is 
C likelihood of an order of acquittal at the end of the trial. 
. 8. To appreciate t./le submissions advanced at the bar, 
we may straightaway refer to the authority in State of 
Maharashtra through CBI v. Vikram Anantrai Doshi and 
D others8. In the said case, the accused was charged for the 
offences punishable under Sections 120-B, 406, 420, 467, 
468 and 471 IPC. The allegation in the said case was that the 
accused no. 1 had obtained Letters of Credit from the State 
Bank of India and Dena Bank in favour of fictitious companies 
E formed by the accused and used the said Letters of Credit to 
siphon off the funds from the banks. During the pendency of 
the case, the accused settled the dispute with the Bank by 
paying the amount and the Bank in turn had issued no·due 
F certificate. The Court referred to case in
CB/ v. A. 
Ravishankar Prasad and others9 , wherein the 
pronouncements in CB/ v. Duncans Agro Industries Ltd. 10 
and Nikhil Merchant (supra) were distinguished. It is 
necessary to note that the Court in Ravi Shankar Prasad's 
G case referred to /nder Mohan Goswami v. State of 
Uttarancha/11 and stated thus:-
-
H 
• 2014 (10) SCALE 690 
·' (2009) e sec 351 
10 (1996) 5 sec 581 
11 (2007) 12 sec 1
STATE, REP. BY INSPECTOR OF POLICE CCB v. R. 
781 
VASANTHI STANLEY [DIPAK MISRA, J.] 
38. Let us consider the facts of this case and apply the A 
ratio of Goswami case where facts are as follows: 
(/) The allegations are. that the accused have 
committed serious offences such as forgery, 
fabrication of documents and used those documents B 
as genuine. 
( //) The allegations are that the respondent-accused 
herein A. Ravishankar Prasad and A. Manohar Prasad 
have entered into a conspiracy with the Chairman and c 
Managing Director and other officials of Indian Bank, 
Chennai with the object of cheating Indian Bank in the 
matter of recommending, sanctioning, disbursing huge 
credit facilities running over hundreds of crores. 
D 
(///)Trial of all four cases are at an advanced stage in 
which 92 witnesses have already been examined. 
While applying the ratio of Goswami case, how can any 
court in its legitimate exercise of power under Section 
482 CrPC quash the proceedings against accused A. 
E 
Ravishankar Prasad and A. Manohar Prasad in the face 
of the aforesaid allegations? in the instant case, wrong 
application of the ratio of the said judgment has led to 
grave miscarriage of justice. 
39. Careful analysis of all these judgments clearly reveals 
that the exercise of inherent powers would entirely 
depend on the facts and circumstances of each case. 
The object of incorporating inherent powers in the Code 
is to prevent abuse of the process of the court or to secure G
ends of justice. 
40. Both English and the Indian courts have consistently 
taken the view that the inherent powers can be exercised 
in those exceptional cases where the allegations made H
782 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2015] 9 S.C.R. 
A 
in the first information report or the complaint, even if are 
taken on their face value and accepted in their entirety 
do not prima facie constitute any offence or make out a 
case against the accused. When we apply the settled 
legal position to the facts of this case it is not possible to 
B 
conclude that the complaint and the charge-sheet prima 
facie do not constitute any offence against the 
respondents." 
Being of this view, the Court in A. Ravishankar Prasad 
C 
(supra) allowed the appeal preferred by the CBI. 
9. Apart from above, in Vikram Anantrai Doshi & Ors. 
(supra) the Court referred to Gian Singh v. State of Punjab 
and Another12 , with regard to the power of the High Court as 
o regards the quashing of the criminal proceedings on the basis 
of a compromise. This Court also referred to Narinder Singh 
& Ors. v. State of Punjab & Anr. 13, Dimpy Gujral v. Union 
Territory through Administrator14 and State of Rajasthan 
v. Sambhu Kevat15 and thereafter dwelt upon the ratio in CB/; 
E ACS, Mumbai v. Narendra Lal Jain & Ors. 16 wherein the 
charges were framed under Section 120-B read with Section 
420 IPC. A passage from the said judgment was reproduced 
which is to the following effect:-
F 
'The offences are certainly more serious; they are not 
private in nature. The charge of conspiracy is to commit 
offences under the Prevention of Corruption Act. The 
accused has also been charged for commission of the
substantive offence Under Section 471 Indian Penal 
G 
.12 (2012) 1 o sec 303 
13 (2014) 6 sec 466 
1• AIR 2012 sew 5333 
15 2013 (14) SCALE 235 
H 
1• (2014) 5 sec 364
STATE, REP. BY INSPECTOR OF POLICE CCB v. R. 
783 
VASANTHI STANLEY [DIPAK MISRA, J.] 
Code. Though the amount due have been paid the same A 
is Uilder a private settlement between the parties unlike 
in Nikhil Merchant (supra) and Narendra Lal. 
Jain (supra) where the compromise was a part of the 
decree of the Court. There is no acknowledgement on 
the part of the bank of the exoneration of the criminal · B 
liability of the aq;used-Appellant unlike the terms of 
compromise decree in the aforesaid two cases. In the 
totality of the facts stated above, if the High Court has 
taken the view that the exclusion spelt out in Gian 
Singh (supra) (para 61) applies to the present case and C 
on that basis had come to the conclusion that the power 
Under Section 482 Code of Criminal Procedure should 
not be exercised to quash the criminal case against the 
accused, we cannot find any justification to interfere with 
0 
the said decision." 
· 
10. After distinguishing many a decision, the Court relied 
upon Central Bureau of Investigation v. Jagjit 
Singh17 wherein the court being moved by the CBI had 
overturned the order of the High Court quashing the criminal 
E 
proceeding and in that backdrop had taken note of the fact 
that accused persons had dishonestly induced delivery of the 
property of the bank and had used forged documents as 
genuine. Thereafter, the Court proceeded to state that:-
F 
· "23 ...... availing of money from a nationalized bank in the 
manner, as alleged by
the investigating agency, vividly 
exposits fiscal impurity and, in a way, financial fraud. The 
modus operandi as narrated in the chargesheet cannot 
be put in the compartment of an individual or personal G 
wrong. It is a social wrong and it has immense .societal 
impact. It is an accepted principle of handling of finance 
that whenever, there is manipulation and cleverly 
11 (2013) 1 o sec 686 
H
784 
A 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2015] 9 S.C.R. 
conceived contrivance to avail of these kind of benefits 
it cannot be regarded as a case having overwhelmingly 
and predominantingly of civil character. The ultimate victim 
is the collective. It creates a hazard in the financial interest 
of the society. The gravity of the offence creates a dent 
in the economic spine of the nation. The cleverness which 
has been skillfully contrived, if the allegations are true, 
has a serious consequence. A crime of this nature, in 
our view, would definitely fall in the category of offences 
which travel far ahead of personal or private wrong. It 
has the potentiality to usher in economic crisis. Its 
implications have its own seriousness, for it creates a 
concavity in the solemnity that is expected in financial 
transactions. It is not such a case where one can pay the 
amount and obtain a "no due certificate" and enjoy the 
benefit of quashing of the criminal proceeding on the 
hypostasis that nothing more remains to be done. The 
collective interest of which the Court is the guardian 
cannot be a silent or a mute spectator to allow the 
proceedings to be withdrawn, or for that matter yield to 
the ingenuous dexterity of the accused persons to invoke 
the jurisdiction Under Article 226 of the Constitution or 
Under Section 482 of the Code and quash the 
proceeding. It is not legally permissible. The Court is 
expected to be on guard to these kinds of adroit moves. 
The
High Court, we humbly remind, should have dealt 
with the matter keeping in mind that in these kind of 
litigations the accused when perceives a tiny gleam of 
success, readily invokes the inherent jurisdiction for 
quashing of the criminal proceeding. The court's principal 
duty, at that juncture, should be to scan the entire facts to 
find out the thrust of allegations and the crux of the 
settlement. It is the experience ,of the Judge comes to 
his aid and the said experience should be used with care, 
caution, circumspection and courageous prudence."
STATE, REP. BY INSPECTOR OF POLICE CCB v. R. 
785 
VASANTHI STANLEY [DIPAK MISRA, J.] 
11. Recently, in CBI v. Maninder Singh18 , the allegation A 
against the accused was that bill of lading presented by the 
proprietors of the accused firms were found forged and cases 
were registered under Section 120-B IPC read with Section 
420 IPC and Section 5(2) read with Section 5(1) (d) of 
Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 and further substantive B 
offences under Sections 420, 467, 468 and 471 IPC. The 
accused person arrived at a settlement with the Bank and 
thereafter moved the High Court under Section 482 CrPC for 
quashing of the FIR. The High Court placed reliance on the 
decision in Nikhil Merchant (supra) and allowed the petition C 
and directed for quashing of the criminal proceedings. This 
Court placed reliance on Vikram Anantrai Doshi and others 
(supra) and came to hold as follows:-
"10. The allegation against the respondent is 'forgery' D 
for the purpose of cheating and use of forged documents 
as genuine in orderto embezzle the public money. After 
facing such serious charges of forgery, the Respondent 
wants the proceedings to be quashed on account of 
settlement with the bank. The development in means of E 
communication, science & technology etc. have led to 
an enormous increase in economic crimes viz. phishing, 
ATM frauds etc. which are being committed by intelligent 
but devious individuals involving huge sums of public or F 
government money. These are
actually public wrongs or 
crimes committed against society and the gravity and 
magnitude attached to these offences is concentrated 
at public at large. 
11. The inherent power of the High Court Under G 
Section 482 Code of Criminal Procedure should be 
sparingly used. Only when the Court comes to the 
. conclusion that there would be manifest injustice or there 
" 2015 (9) SCALE 365 
H
786 
A 
B 
c 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
(2015] 9 S.C.R. 
would be abuse of the process of the Court if such power 
is not exercised, Court would quash the proceedings. In 
economic offences Court must not only keep in view that 
moriey has been paid to the bank which has been 
defrauded but also the society at large. It is not a case of 
simple assault or a theft of a trivial amount; but the offence 
with which we are concerned is a well planned and was 
committed with a deliberate design with an eye of 
personal profit regardless of consequence to the society 
at large. To quash the proceeding merely on the ground 
that the accused has settled the amount with the bank 
would be a misplaced sympathy." 
12. Testing the present controversy on the anvil of the 
aforesaid principles, we are disposed to think that the High 
D Court has been erroneously guided by the ambit and sweep 
of power under Section 482 CrPC for quashing the 
proceedings. It has absolutely fallaciously opined that the 
continuance of the proceeding will be the abuse of the process 
of the Court. It has been categorically held in Janta Dal v. 
E H.S. Chowdhary19 , that the inherent power under Section 482 
CrPC though unrestricted and undefined should not be 
capriciously or arbitrarily exercised, but should be exercised 
in appropriate cases, ex debito justitiae to do real and 
F substantial justice for the administration of which alone the 
courts exist. In lnder Mohan Goswami (supra), it has been 
emphasised
that inherent powers have to be exercised 
sparingly, carefully and with great caution. 
13. We will be failing in our duty unless we advert to the 
G proponements propounded with regard to other aspects. They 
are really matters of concern and deserve to be addressed. 
The submission as put forth is that the first respondent is a 
lady and she was following the command of her husband and 
H ,. (1992) 4 sec 305
S"'fATE, REP. BY INSPECTOR OF POLICE CCB v. R. 
787 
VASANTHI STANLEY [DIPAK MISRA, J.] 
signed the documents without being aware about the A 
transactions entered into by the husband and nature of the 
business. The allegation in the chargesheet is that she has 
signed the pronotes. That apart, as further alleged, she is a 
co-applicant in two cases and guarantor in other two cases. 
She was an Assistant Commissioner of Commercial Taxes B 
and after taking voluntary retirement she has joined the public 
life, and became a member of the 'Rajya Sabha'. Emphasis 
is also laid that she is a lady and there is no warrant to continue 
the criminal proceeding when she has paid the dues of the 
banks, and if anything further is due that shall be made good. C 
The assertions as regards the ignorance are a mere pretence · 
and sans substance given the facts. Lack of awareness, 
·knowledge or intent is neither to be considered nor accepted 
in economic offences. The submission assiduously presented 0 
on gender leaves us unimpressed. An offence under the 
criminal law is an offence and it does not depend upon the 
gender of an accused. True it is, th~re are certain provisions 
in CrPC relating to exercise of jurisdiction under Section 437, 
etc. therein but that altogether pertains to a different sphere. A 
E 
person committing a murder or getting involved in a financial 
scam or forgery of documents, cannot claim discharge or 
acquittal on the ground of her gender as that is neither
constitutionally nor statutorily a valid argument. The offence is 
gender neutral in this case. We say no more on this score. 
F 
14. As far as the load on the criminal justice dispensation 
system is concerned it has an insegragable nexus with speedy 
trial. A grave criminal offence or serious economic offence or 
for that matter the offence that has the potentiality to create a G 
dent in the financial health of the institutions, is not to be 
quashed on the ground thatthere is delay in trial or the principle 
that when the matter has been settled it should be quashed to 
avoid the load on the system. That can never be an acceptable 
H

788 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2015] 9 S.C.R. 
A 
principle or parameter, for that would amount to destroying the 
stem cells of law and order in many a realm and further 
strengthen the marrows of the unscrupulous litigations. Such 
a situation should never be conceived of. 
B 
15. In view of the aforesaid analysis, we allow the appeal, 
set aside the order passed by the High Court and direct the 
trial magistrate to proceed in accordance with law. 
Devika Gujral 
Appeal allowed.