Madras High Court
N.S.Gnaneshwaran vs The Inspector Of Police, on 8 July, 2026
Author: G.K. Ilanthiraiyan
Bench: G.K. Ilanthiraiyan
Crl.O.P.No.17805 of 2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
RESERVED ON : 30.06.2026
PRONOUNCED ON : 08.07.2026
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE G.K. ILANTHIRAIYAN
Crl.O.P.No.17805 of 2025
and
Crl.M.P.Nos.11490 and 11491 of 2025
N.S.Gnaneshwaran … Petitioner/Accused No.3
vs.
1.The Superintendent of Police,
SPE CBI ACB,
Chennai.
2.The Deputy General Manager,
Canara Bank,
Disciplinary Action Cell,
Circle Office, Teynampet,
Chennai – 600 018. … Respondents
PRAYER: Criminal Original Petition is filed under Section 482 of the
Criminal Procedure Code and Section 528 of the Bharathiya Nagarik
Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, to call for the records relating to the impugned
proceedings in C.C.No.11 of 2008 on the file of XI Additional Special Court
for CBI Cases at Chennai and quash the same in respect of the petitioner
alone.
1/24
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.No.17805 of 2025
For Petitioner : Mr.K.Suresh Kumar
for M/s.A.B.Rajasekaran
For R1 : Mr.K.Srinivasan
Special Public Prosecutor (CBI)
For R2 : Mr.S.Ashwin Prashanth
for M/s.Aishwarya S.Nathan
ORDER
This Criminal Original Petition has been filed to quash the
proceedings in C.C.No.11 of 2008 on the file of XI Additional Special Court
for CBI Cases at Chennai.
2. (i) The petitioner is arrayed as 3 rd accused. The case of the
prosecution is that the petitioner along with other accused entered into a
criminal conspiracy in the year 2002 to cheat the 2 nd respondent/bank.
According to the prosecution, the 2nd accused opened a Current Account at
the 2nd respondent/bank and subsequently, he got 59 discounted bills
enclosing false invoices and receipts for various amounts under secured
demand bills during the period 18.12.2002 to 14.01.2003, out of which 44
bills were outstanding to the tune of Rs.28.58 lakhs as of 28.02.20025 and
thus, caused loss to the 2nd respondent/bank.
2/24
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.No.17805 of 2025
2. (ii) It is the further case of the prosecution that the then Chief
Manager of 2nd respondent/bank namely the 1st accused, in collusion with 2nd
accused, who is proprietor of M/s.Sriram Trading Company, discounted the
bills presented by the said Company thereby causing loss to the 2 nd
respondent/bank. It is further stated in the charge sheet that the 1st accused
was abusing his official position as Chief Manager and purchased secured
demand bills by reducing the initial margin of 25% on 18.12.2002 and
19.12.2002 and later, further reduced it to 10% by exceeding his limit of
purchase. In pursuance of the conspiracy, the approver Sri. S. Narasimha
Raghavan prepared ante-dated office note on the basis of papers submitted
by M/s.Sriram Trading Company represented by 2nd accused requesting for
Secured Demand Bills limit of Rs.30,00,000/- for one year. The 1 st accused
approved it on the same day, knowing fully well that there were no collateral
securities for the bills already purchased.
2. (iii) It is further stated that in the charge sheet, the petitioner/3 rd
accused dishonestly and fraudulently arranged for guarantor
T.R.Krishnamoorhty (deceased) with a property worth Rs.1 lakh as collateral
security. It is further alleged that the 6 th accused, who is a private valuer,
fraudulently inflated the value of the said property to Rs.13.50 lakhs. It is
3/24
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.No.17805 of 2025
further stated that the petitioner/3rd accused along with 2nd accused
fraudulently made arrangements to fill up cheques through 5 th accused and
one Kasturi Rao and also obtained signatures from 5 th accused, B.K.Senthil,
H.S.Kannan and V.S.Kannan on the reverse side of the cheque and encashed
the same in 2nd respondent/bank. It is further stated that the petitioner
dishonestly and fraudulently filled and signed the cheques in the name of
B.V.K.Kumar etc., in the name of non-existing persons and withdrew the
proceeds of the discounted amounts. It is further alleged that the 2 nd accused,
knowing fully well that the addressees mentioned in the invoices had not
ordered the goods, furnished the names and addresses of such persons in the
invoices for discounting the Secured Demand Bills. Thus, they caused loss
to the 2nd respondent/bank. Therefore, all the accused are charged for the
offences under Section 120-B read with 420 of IPC and Section 13(2) read
with 13(1)(d) of Prevention of Corruption Act. After completion of
investigation, the 1st respondent filed final report and the same has been
taken cognizance by the Trial Court.
3. Mr.K.Suresh Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner
submits that the specific charge as against the petitioner is that he arranged
one guarantor namely T.R.Krishnamoorthy and property was fraudulently
4/24
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.No.17805 of 2025
valued. The property was valued only to the worth of Rs.1 lakh and the 6 th
accused, who is a private valuer, valued the said property to the tune of
Rs.13.50 lakhs. Therefore, the petitioner had dishonestly and fraudulently
filled up the cheques through other accused and in the name of non-existing
persons. After filing the final report, the defacto complainant also issued a
letter dated 13.12.2020 informing that under One-Time Settlement Scheme,
the entire amount was settled by the borrower. The amount due to the Bank
is Rs.28,58,000/-. The 2nd respondent/bank realised a sum of Rs.15,60,000/-
from the property and under One-Time Settlement Scheme, wherein the 2 nd
respondent/bank received a sum of Rs.13,50,000/- as full and final
settlement. Therefore, the 2nd respondent had realised the entire amount due
and they also submitted full satisfaction before the Debt Recovery Tribunal.
In view of the settlement made by the petitioner, the entire proceedings
against the petitioner cannot be sustained and is liable to be quashed.
4. In support of his contention, he relied upon several judgments of
the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India:-
4. (i) In K.Bharthi Devi and another vs. State of Telangana and
another reported in (2024) 10 SCC 384, the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India
5/24
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.No.17805 of 2025held as follows:-
“44. The facts in the present case are similar to the facts
in Sadhu Ram Singla wherein a dispute between the borrower
and the Bank was settled. In the present case also, undisputedly,
the FIR and the charge-sheet are pertaining to the dispute
concerning the loan transaction availed by the accused persons
on one hand and the Bank on the other hand. Admittedly, the
Bank and the accused persons have settled the matter. Apart
from the earlier payment received by the Bank either through
equated monthly instalments (EMIs) or sale of the mortgaged
properties, the borrowers have paid an amount of
Rs.3,80,00,000/- under OTS. After receipt of the amount under
OTS, the Bank had also decided to close the loan account. The
dispute involved predominantly had overtures of a civil dispute.
45. Apart from that, it is further to be noted that in view
of the settlement between the parties in the proceedings before
the DRT, the possibility of conviction is remote and bleak. In our
view, continuation of the criminal proceedings would put the
accused to great oppression and prejudice.
46. In any case, as discussed hereinabove, both the
appellants have been arraigned as wives of the Accused 1 and 2.
The specific role that was attributed in the charge-sheet was
pertaining to Accused 1.
47. In the result, we find that this was a fit case wherein
the High Court ought to have exercised its jurisdiction under
Section 482 CrPC and quash the criminal proceedings.”
6/24
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.No.17805 of 2025
In the above cited judgment, since the dispute concerning the loan
transaction availed by the accused from the defacto complainant was settled,
the defecto complainant/bank also decided to close the loan account. Hence,
the dispute in the present case is predominantly civil in nature.
4. (ii) In Tarina Sen vs. Union of India and another reported in
(2024) 20 SCC 97, the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India held as follows:-
“20. The facts in the present case are not in dispute. It is
not disputed that the matter has been compromised between the
borrowers and the Bank. It has also not been in dispute that,
upon payment of the amount under the OTS, the loan account
of the borrower has been closed.
21. Therefore, the only question would be, as to whether
the continuation of the criminal proceedings against the present
appellants would be justified or not.
22. At the outset, we may state that we are only
considering the cases of two women i.e. Accused 4 and 5,
wherein Accused 4 is the wife of Accused 2. It is also not in
dispute that the original Accused 2 and 3 have since died.
23. By a separate judgment of the even date in criminal
7/24
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.No.17805 of 2025appeal arising out of Special Leave Petition (Criminal)
No.4353 of 2018 wherein similar facts arose for consideration,
we have held that when the matter has been compromised
between the borrower and Bank, the continuation of the
criminal proceedings would not be justifiable.
24. Relying on the earlier judgments of this Court, we
have held that in the matters arising out of commercial,
financial, mercantile, civil, partnership or such like
transactions or the offences arising out of matrimony relating
to dowry, etc. or family disputes where the wrong is basically
private or personal in nature and the parties have resolved
their entire dispute, the High Court should exercise its powers
under Section 482 CrPC for giving an end to the criminal
proceedings. We have held that the possibility of conviction in
such cases is remote and bleak and as such, the continuation of
the criminal proceedings would put the accused to great
oppression and prejudice.”In the above judgment, since the matter was compromised between the
borrower and bank, it was found that the continuation of the criminal
proceedings would not be justifiable, hence, the Hon’ble Supreme Court of
India had quashed the proceedings on the ground of compromise.
8/24
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.No.17805 of 2025
4. (iii) In N.S.Gnaneshwaran Etc. vs. Inspector of Police and
another reported in 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1257, the Hon’ble Supreme
Court of India held as follows:-
“7. Having considered the submissions of both sides
and examined the record, we are of the view that no useful
purpose would be served by continuing the criminal
proceedings in the present matter. The dispute has, admittedly,
culminated in a comprehensive One Time Settlement under
which the Bank has received the entire outstanding amount.
The recovery proceedings before the tribunal have been
dismissed as settled, and no residual claim survives. The Bank
has not raised any objection to the closure of the matter and
has issued formal acknowledgments of satisfaction.
8. Further, in identical proceedings filed by the CBI
against the appellants in C.C. Nos. 13 of 2006 and 151 of 2010,
the charge sheets were quashed by the High Court after taking
note of the settlement reached in the recovery proceedings. The
special leave petitions preferred by the State being SLP (Crl)
No. 711 of 2021 and SLP (Crl) No. 825 of 2021 challenging the
said quashing were dismissed by this Court, rendering the
orders final. Since the facts and legal position are the same in
the present matter, we see no reason why the appellants should
not be given the same relief.
9/24
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.No.17805 of 2025
9. In our view, allowing the present criminal
proceedings to continue would serve no meaningful purpose,
particularly when the dispute between the parties has already
been resolved through a full and final settlement. The
settlement between the parties having taken place after the
alleged commission of the offence, and there being no
continuing public interest we see no justification for allowing
the matter to proceed further.”
In the said decision, the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India held that the
dispute between the parties had already been resolved through a full and
final settlement. The settlement between the parties had taken place after the
alleged commission of offence and there is no continuing public interest and
thereby quashed the proceedings.
4. (iv) In Vijay Kumar Kela and another vs. Central Bureau of
Investigation and another reported in 2026 INSC 588, the Hon’ble
Supreme Court of India held as follows:-
“27. Further, having regard to the fact that the dispute
between the parties arising out of banking transactions which
are commercial transactions having overwhelmingly or
predominantly civil flavour had ended in a compromise
settlement, that too, in the manner which we have delineated
10/24https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.No.17805 of 2025above, in our view, the possibility of conviction of appellant No.
1 is remote and bleak. Therefore, continuation of the criminal
case would cause grave prejudice and injustice to the
appellants.
28. There is one more reason why we say so. If the
respondent-Bank is permitted to go ahead with the criminal
prosecution initiated after settlement of the loan account before
the DRT, it would adversely impact the sanctity of such
settlement which has become part of the judicial proceeding
and which had the approval of a judicial forum like the DRT. If
such a conduct is overlooked and prosecution is allowed to
continue, many persons including commercial entities would be
hesitant to come forward and seek resolution of their disputes
arising out of banking transactions which are after all
commercial transactions, having predominantly elements of
civil dispute(s). This in turn would have a debilitating effect on
the overall economy, more so, when the focus is on settlement
of commercial disputes. This is the larger picture we need to
keep in mind.”In the above case, the dispute between the parties arose out of banking
transactions which are commercial transactions and are predominantly civil
in nature and it ended in a compromise settlement. It was held that the
possibility of conviction of the accused is remote and bleak and that the
11/24
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.No.17805 of 2025complainant/bank on one hand issued No Objection Certificate after settling
the dues and on the other hand permitted to go ahead with the criminal
prosecution. Therefore, the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India held that it
would adversely impact the sanctity of such settlement which has become
part of the judicial proceeding and which had the approval of a Judicial
Forum like the Debt Recovery Tribunal (DRT). If such a conduct is
overlooked and prosecution is allowed to continue, many persons including
commercial entities would be hesitant to come forward and seek resolution
for the disputes that are arising out of banking transactions.
5. The learned counsel appearing for the 2 nd respondent/bank
submitted a Letter dated 24.12.2021, purportedly issued by one of their
banks, is not in tune with the rules of the bank involved. He further
submitted that though the 2nd accused approached this Court to quash the
above said proceedings in Crl.O.P.No.25855 of 2024 and the same was
dismissed by this Court by an order dated 15.04.2025. These facts were not
brought to the notice of this Court.
6. Heard the learned counsel appearing on either side and perused the
materials available on record.
12/24
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.No.17805 of 2025
7. On perusal of the counter affidavit filed by the 2nd respondent, it is
revealed that though the petitioner was issued ‘No Dues Certificate’, the
terms and conditions therein includes that the criminal case shall be
continued. Therefore, the compromise is being considered by the Bank as a
commercial decision and shall have no bearing what so ever on the ongoing
criminal case being carried out by the respondent and the same shall proceed
as per law. Further, the One-Time Settlement will have no binding on the
criminality or forgery and submission of fabricated and forged documents to
avail loan from the Bank. The accused had created documents only for the
purpose of availing loan and with the fraudulent intention had conspired
together and prepared forged and fabricated invoices and submitted to the
Bank. Therefore, the One-Time Settlement will have no implication on the
offences committed by the accused. Further, the accused have commited
non-compoundable offences including the offence under the Prevention of
Corruption Act, 1988.
8. The learned Special Public Prosecutor for CBI appearing for the
1st respondent relied upon the following judgment:-
13/24
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.No.17805 of 2025
8. (i) In Gian Singh vs. State of Punjab and another reported in
(2012) 10 SCC 303, the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India held as follows:-
“61. The position that emerges from the above
discussion can be summarised thus: the power of the High
Court in quashing a criminal proceeding or FIR or complaint
in exercise of its inherent jurisdiction is distinct and different
from the power given to a criminal court for compounding the
offences under Section 320 of the Code. Inherent power is of
wide plenitude with no statutory limitation but it has to be
exercised in accord with the guideline engrafted in such power
viz; (i) to secure the ends of justice or (ii) to prevent abuse of
the process of any Court. In what cases power to quash the
criminal proceeding or complaint or F.I.R may be exercised
where the offender and victim have settled their dispute would
depend on the facts and circumstances of each case and no
category can be prescribed. However, before exercise of such
power, the High Court must have due regard to the nature and
gravity of the crime. Heinous and serious offences of mental
depravity or offences like murder, rape, dacoity, etc. cannot be
fittingly quashed even though the victim or victim’s family and
the offender have settled the dispute. Such offences are not
private in nature and have serious impact on society. Similarly,
any compromise between the victim and offender in relation to
the offences under special statutes like Prevention of
Corruption Act or the offences committed by public servants
14/24https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.No.17805 of 2025while working in that capacity etc; cannot provide for any basis
for quashing criminal proceedings involving such offences. But
the criminal cases having overwhelmingly and predominatingly
civil flavour stand on different footing for the purposes of
quashing, particularly the offences arising from commercial,
financial, mercantile, civil, partnership or such like
transactions or the offences arising out of matrimony relating
to dowry, etc. or the family disputes where the wrong is
basically private or personal in nature and the parties have
resolved their entire dispute. In this category of cases, High
Court may quash criminal proceedings if in its view, because of
the compromise between the offender and victim, the possibility
of conviction is remote and bleak and continuation of criminal
case would put accused to great oppression and prejudice and
extreme injustice would be caused to him by not quashing the
criminal case despite full and complete settlement and
compromise with the victim. In other words, the High Court
must consider whether it would be unfair or contrary to the
interest of justice to continue with the criminal proceeding or
continuation of the criminal proceeding would tantamount to
abuse of process of law despite settlement and compromise
between the victim and wrongdoer and whether to secure the
ends of justice, it is appropriate that criminal case is put to an
end and if the answer to the above question(s) is in affirmative,
the High Court shall be well within its jurisdiction to quash the
criminal proceeding.”15/24
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.No.17805 of 2025Thus, it is clear that any compromise between the victim and the offender in
relation to the offences under special statutes like the Prevention of
Corruption Act, 1988 or the offences committed by Public Servants while
working in that capacity etc., shall not be a basis for quashing the criminal
proceedings. Further, heinous and serious offences of mental depravity such
as murder, rape and dacoity etc., cannot appropriately be quashed though the
victim or victim families have settled the same with the accused. Therefore,
the inherent power as contemplated under Section 482 of the Criminal
Procedure Code has to be exercised in accordance with guideline i.e., to
secure ends of justice or to prevent abuse of process of any Court. At the
same time, the offence committed as against the Society at large cannot be
considered even if the parties entered into compromise since such offences
have a serious impact on society. It was held by the Hon’ble Three Judges
Bench of the Supreme Court of India.
9. The learned counsel appearing for the 2nd respondent/bank relied
upon the following judgment:-
9. (i) The Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in S.L.P.(Crl.).No.11108
of 2022, dated 11.11.2025 in the case of Central Bureau of Investigation
16/24
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.No.17805 of 2025vs. M/s. Sarvodaya Highways Ltd and others held as follows:-
“23. Having gone through the reasons assigned by the
High Court, it is apparent that while quashing the proceedings
on the basis of one-time settlement, the High Court failed to
advert to the following vital facts of the case which were duly
established during investigation.
(i) That there was a specific finding in the chargesheet that
the defaulter company through its directors had
submitted fabricated documents and misrepresented to
the Bank for the purpose of procuring the cash credit
facility.
(ii) That the appellant-CBI, on the basis of evidence
collected during investigation, found that the offences
of criminal conspiracy, fabrication of documents, and
offences under the PC Act, were clearly made out.
(iii) That sanction for prosecution had been duly issued
against the then Bank Manager, Mr. Nishan Lal.
(iv) That the amount of settlement under the one-time
settlement did not cover the actual amount due to the
Bank and that there was a deficit of more than 5 crores
plus interest which was a direct loss to the public
exchequer.
24. The High Court, while exercising jurisdiction under
Section 482 CrPC, did not consider these vital facts and
quashed the proceedings merely on the basis of the alleged one-
time settlement. The blanket order quashing the chargesheet in
17/24
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.No.17805 of 2025
its entirety would have the effect of terminating the prosecution
against the Bank Manager as well, against whom prosecution
sanction has been granted.
25. There are plethora of judgments of this Court, some
of which we have referred to above, which categorically hold
that in cases involving economic offences, it is not merely the
Bank that stands defrauded, but the society at large is also
impacted.
26. It can be said without a shadow of doubt that the
one-time settlement would not fetch the entire amount to which
the Bank was otherwise entitled, had the cash credit account
been maintained regularly. The settlement was made at around
Rs.41 crores whereas, admittedly, the liability was of Rs. 52
crores approximately. One-time settlements are, as a rule,
effected under circumstances where the Bank under duress is
compelled to accept lesser amount in order to secure the
maximum possible recovery against the defaulting account.
27. In this background, we feel that the High Court
committed error apparent in the eyes of law by quashing the
proceedings.
28. In the case of Jaswant Singh (supra), the dispute
involved was inter se between private parties and the
prosecution had been initiated only for the offences punishable
under Sections 406 and 420 of the IPC. This Court thought it fit
to quash the proceedings considering the fact that the accused
and the complainant had settled all their disputes amicably and
18/24
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.No.17805 of 2025
no useful purpose would be served by allowing the prosecution
to continue.
29. In the case of B.B. Aggarwal (supra), this Court
upheld the order of the High Court quashing the proceedings
against the accused on the ground that the civil suits filed by
the Bank against the defaulter companies and their directors
for recoveries of the outstanding dues, which were subsequently
transferred to Debt Recovery Tribunal stood settled by entering
into a one-time settlement.
30. On going through the aforesaid judgments, we find
that this Court did not consider the judgment in the case of
Gian Singh (supra) which expressly prohibits quashing of
proceedings of a criminal case on strength of a compromise
where loss to public exchequer is evident and the offences
under the PC Act, 1988 are applied.
31. In the Case of Narendra Lal Jain (supra), the
offences were under Sections 420 and 120B of the IPC. This
Court held that Section 420 IPC was compoundable whereas
Section 120B IPC was not. In this background, the Court was
persuaded to quash the proceedings holding that allowing the
criminal prosecution to continue would be nothing short of an
exercise in futility. Additionally, in Narendra Lal Jain (supra),
there was no indication about use of forged documents to
procure the loan/advance facilities from the Bank.
32. Furthermore, in none of these three cases did the
Court observe that the amount of the one-time settlement did
19/24
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.No.17805 of 2025
not cover the actual outstanding dues of the Bank.
33. In this background, we are of the clear opinion that
the facts involved in the three precedents relied upon by learned
counsel for the respondents are clearly distinguishable and the
same have no application to the case at hand.
34. Thus, we are of the opinion that the impugned
judgment and order do not stand to scrutiny and deserves to be
set aside. We, therefore, allow the appeal, set aside the
impugned judgment and order and restore the proceedings
arising out of the chargesheet dated 30th November, 2016
before the trial Court.”
10. Therefore, in cases involving economic offences, it is not merely
the Bank that stands defrauded, but the society at large is also impacted.
Further, the One-Time Settlement would not fetch the entire amount to
which the Bank was otherwise entitled, had the cash credit account being
maintained regularly. The One-Time Settlement was effected under the
circumstances where the Bank under duress is compelled to accept the lesser
amount in order to secure the minimum possible recovery against the
defaulting account. Therefore, there was a loss to the public exchequer.
Hence, the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India declined to quash the entire
proceedings on settlement of the loan amount under the One-Time
Settlement Scheme.
20/24
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.No.17805 of 2025
11. The judgments relied upon by the petitioner were held by the
Hon’ble Two Judges Bench of the Supreme Court of India. The case of Gian
Singh vs. State of Punjab and another was held by the Hon’ble Three
Judges Bench of the Supreme Court of India. Therefore, this Court is
inclined to respectfully follow the Gian Singh case held by the Hon’ble
Three Judges Bench of the Apex Court. Further, the judgments relied upon
by the learned counsel for the petitioner are not applicable to the present
case on hand.
12. In the case of Gian Singh vs. State of Punjab and another, the
Hon’ble Supreme Court of India held that the cases cited by the petitioner
therein were quashed against the women, who were none other than the
wives of the respective public servants, who were facing charges under the
Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. Further, it was held that the settlement
of dues between the parties does not automatically warrant quashing of
criminal proceedings and serious allegation involving fraud and criminal
conspiracy are made out.
13. On perusal of the records, it was further revealed that the Banker
also approved the One-Time Settlement Scheme on condition that the
21/24
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.No.17805 of 2025
settlement proposal given by the party relates only to the recovery
proceedings of the Bank and shall not in any way affect the criminal action
taken by the Bank which shall continue till its logical end. Further, the
Reserve Bank of India also issued guideline with regard to compromise
settlements entered in bank fraud cases, wherein it is provided that the Banks
may enter into compromise settlement with wilful defaulters and fraudulent
borrowers without prejudice to the criminal cases against the borrowers.
14. Further, the Reserve Bank of India Master Directions on Frauds,
dated 01.07.2016 revealed that no compromise settlement involving a
fraudulent borrower is allowed unless the conditions stipulate that the
criminal complaint will be continued. As per the Circular issued by the
Reserve Bank of India, dated 08.06.2023 regulated Entities, may undertake
compromise settlements or technical write-offs in respect of accounts
categorised as wilful defaulters or fraudulent debtor without prejudice to the
criminal proceeding underway against such debtors. That apart, already the
trial had commenced and the prosecution had examined the witnesses.
Therefore, this Court is not inclined to quash the entire proceedings since the
accused had committed offence against the Society and had caused wilful
loss to the complainant banks.
22/24
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.No.17805 of 2025
15. Accordingly, the Criminal Original Petition is dismissed.
Consequently, the connected criminal miscellaneous petitions are closed.
08.07.2026
(2/2)
Index :Yes / No
Speaking order :Yes / No
Neutral Citation :Yes / No
dm
To
1. The XI Additional Special Court for CBI Cases,
Chennai.
2.The Superintendent of Police,
SPE CBI ACB, Chennai.
3.The Deputy General Manager,
Canara Bank, Disciplinary Action Cell,
Circle Office, Teynampet,
Chennai – 600 018.
4.The Public Prosecutor,
High Court of Madras,
Chennai.
23/24
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Crl.O.P.No.17805 of 2025
G.K. ILANTHIRAIYAN, J.
dm
Pre-delivery order made in
Crl.O.P.No.17805 of 2025
08.07.2026
(2/2)
24/24
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
