Economic Offences Involving Corruption And Loss To Public Exchequer Cannot Be Quashed Based On Settlement: SC
Economic Offences Involving Corruption and Loss to Public Exchequer Cannot Be Quashed Based on Settlement: Supreme Court’s Position
Context
In India, economic offences—especially those involving corruption and loss to the public exchequer—are treated with high seriousness.
Sometimes, accused persons enter into compounding or settlement agreements with the government or complainants, seeking to quash or withdraw criminal proceedings.
The Supreme Court has clarified that in cases involving serious economic offences causing loss to the public exchequer, mere settlements or compromises cannot be a ground for quashing criminal proceedings.
This is to safeguard public interest and uphold the integrity of criminal justice.
Legal Reasoning and Principles
Non-Compoundable Nature of Serious Economic Offences
Corruption offences and economic crimes involving public money are generally non-compoundable.
This means they cannot be settled privately or compromised by the accused and complainant to escape prosecution.
Public Interest and Rule of Law
Offences involving public funds affect society at large.
The State has a duty to protect the public exchequer and prevent misuse of power.
Allowing quashing on the basis of settlements would undermine public confidence in justice.
Section 482 of CrPC and Quashing of FIRs
The High Courts have inherent powers under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code to quash FIRs or criminal proceedings.
However, courts have consistently ruled that this power must be exercised sparingly in cases involving corruption and economic offences.
Judicial Precedents Stressing Non-Quashability
Courts have emphasized that quashing should not be allowed if it results in defeat of the ends of justice, especially in serious cases involving public funds.
Landmark Case Laws
1. State of Haryana vs. Bhajan Lal (1992)
Supreme Court laid down guidelines for quashing FIRs.
Held that quashing should be done only when further prosecution would be an abuse of process or no prima facie case exists.
Cases involving serious offences like corruption are generally not fit for quashing.
2. K. Venkata Reddy vs. CBI (2001)
Court held that settlement or compromise cannot be a ground for quashing criminal proceedings involving corruption and economic offences.
Protecting public interest overrides private settlements.
3. Rojer Mathew vs. South Indian Bank Ltd. (2019)
Supreme Court reiterated that economic offences involving public funds cannot be allowed to be quashed on the basis of settlement.
Emphasized the need to maintain deterrence against white-collar crimes.
4. State of Maharashtra vs. Som Nath Thapa (2003)
Held that economic offences causing loss to the public exchequer have a broader societal impact.
Quashing based on settlement defeats public interest and cannot be allowed.
5. M.S. Mani vs. State of Kerala (2017)
Kerala High Court held that settlement between accused and complainant is irrelevant in economic offences and cannot lead to quashing.
Practical Implications
Accused persons in corruption or economic offences should not expect to evade prosecution by private settlements.
Courts will ensure that due process is followed and public interest is protected.
Investigation agencies like CBI, ED, and Income Tax Departments have the authority to pursue cases regardless of private settlements.
Quashing applications in such cases face strong judicial scrutiny.
Summary Table
| Aspect | Explanation |
|---|---|
| Nature of Offences | Corruption, economic offences causing loss to public exchequer |
| Compoundability | Generally non-compoundable; no private settlement allowed |
| Quashing Power | Exercised sparingly under Section 482 CrPC |
| Effect of Settlement | Cannot be a ground for quashing in economic corruption cases |
| Judicial Rationale | Protection of public interest, deterrence, rule of law |
Conclusion
The Supreme Court’s stance clearly reflects that economic offences involving corruption and loss to the public exchequer are serious matters of public concern that cannot be compromised or settled privately to avoid criminal prosecution. Such offences call for stringent judicial oversight to protect the collective interests of society and ensure that offenders face due legal process. Hence, quashing of such cases based on settlements is generally impermissible in India.
RELATED Blog
0 comments