[ad_1]
Supreme Court of India
Suresh C Singal vs The State Of Gujarat on 16 April, 2025
Author: Abhay S. Oka
Bench: Abhay S. Oka
2025 INSC 495
NON-REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 3862 OF 2024
SURESH C. SINGAL & ORS. … APPELLANTS
Versus
THE STATE OF GUJARAT & ORS. … RESPONDENTS
JUDGMENT
AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH, J.
1. The Appellants have challenged the Order dated
05.05.2017 passed by the learned Single Judge of the
High Court of Gujarat in Special Criminal Application
(Quashing) No.5629 of 2015, whereby a writ petition
under Article 226 of the Constitution was preferred by
the Appellants seeking quashing of FIR being RC
No.13(E)/2008-CBI dated 08.12.2008 at Police Station,
Signature Not Verified
Digitally signed by
NARENDRA PRASAD
CBI, BS & FC, Mumbai as well as the charge sheet
Date: 2025.04.16
18:37:04 IST
Reason:
dated 26.05.2010 was dismissed.
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 3862 OF 2024 Page 1 of 20
2. The bare necessary facts in the present case are that
between 1998-2005 Bank of Maharashtra sanctioned
multiple credit facilities to the Appellants due to their
strong financial standing. Beginning June 2005
onwards, the Appellant companies faced a financial
crunch due to adverse market conditions, including the
2004 Surat floods, leading to the bank classifying their
loans/credit facilities as Non-Performing Assets
(hereinafter referred to as “NPA”). Bank of
Maharashtra proceeded to file applications for recovery
of the debt before the Debt Recovery Tribunal,
Ahmedabad (hereinafter referred to as “DRT”).
3. During the pendency of these proceedings, Central
Bureau of Investigation (hereinafter referred to as
“CBI”) on the basis of reliable information proceeded to
register the above-referred FIR against the Appellants,
proforma Respondents 3 and 4 as well as the Branch
Manager of the Bank of Maharashtra for offences
punishable under Section 420, 467, 468 and 471 read
with 120B of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter
referred to as “IPC”) and under Section 13(2) read with
Section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act,
1988 (hereinafter referred to as “PC Act”).
4. One Time Settlement proposal as a compromise was
put forth during the proceedings before the DRT which
was accepted by the Bank. A communication to thisCRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 3862 OF 2024 Page 2 of 20
effect was addressed to the Appellants on 27.12.2008.
A revised/extended compromise proposal was finally
submitted and accepted by the parties leading to the
finalisation of the terms on 12.04.2010. On receipt of
the amount due, proceedings before the DRT concluded
and a No Dues Certificate was issued to the Appellants
on 11.04.2011. The Bank further intimated that the
names of the appellants did not now appear in the
CIBIL/RBI Defaulters List and the process of removal of
names from the RBI Defaulters list has also been
initiated.
5. CBI, meanwhile, filed a chargesheet on 27.05.2010
under Section 120B read with Sections 419, 420, 467,
468 and 471 IPC. What is apparent and patently
visible from the chargesheet was that no evidence was
found against the Branch Manager of the Bank, leading
to he being dropped as an accused owing to insufficient
material and consequently charges under the PC Act
being omitted.
6. The Appellants in the light of the settlement of the
dispute with the Bank and with “No Dues Certificate”
having been received, preferred an application for
discharge under Section 239 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1973 before the Additional Chief Judicial
Magistrate, CBI Court No.2, Ahmedabad (Rural),
Mirzapur. The said application was accepted, and the
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 3862 OF 2024 Page 3 of 20
Appellants were discharged vide Order dated
15.11.2011. The said order was challenged by CBI by
way of a revision petition before the learned Sessions
Judge, Ahmedabad, who vide Order dated 09.07.2015
accepted the revision petition and set aside the order
impugned. The Appellants then challenged this Order
before Gujarat High Court with a further prayer
seeking quashing of the FIR and consequential
chargesheet. This petition was dismissed by the High
Court vide order dated 05.05.2017 leading to the filing
of the present appeal before this Court.
7. The ground for challenge of the order before this Court
is based upon the contention that the dispute was
essentially of a civil/commercial nature as initiated by
the Bank by way of applications before the DRT, which
dispute stood settled with the dues having been paid by
the Appellants. With the discharge of the civil liability,
criminal proceedings should not be further continued.
It is asserted that the continuation of the criminal
proceedings after the settlement of the civil liability
would be oppressive and would partake the character
of lame prosecution. The chances of conviction are also
very bleak specially when the allegations against the
Bank Manager have been found to be not made out
leading to the dropping of charges under the PC Act.
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 3862 OF 2024 Page 4 of 20
8. Counsel further contends that the Bank had no
grievance, which would have been the aggrieved party.
Neither FIR has been registered nor any criminal
proceedings initiated against the appellants by the
Bank of Maharashtra. However, the FIR has been
registered suo motu by CBI.
9. Referring to the details of the amount as paid by the
Appellants to the Bank vis-à-vis the principal amount
disbursed, it is asserted that the sanctioned principal
amount was ₹14.20 Crores and the amount which has
been paid in total to the Bank is ₹19.67 Crores. Thus,
an extra amount of ₹5.47 Crores has been paid by the
Appellants. No wrongful loss, therefore, can be said to
have been caused to the Bank and all payments due in
respect of the Letters of Credit stand paid. Assertion
has also been made that all norms and practices as
applicable in the banking laws and regulations have
been duly followed during the transactions and no
violations have been recorded. The Court in exercise of
its powers under Section 482 of CrPC 1973 and
specially under Article 226 of the Constitution of India
should have proceeded to quash the proceedings which
would be just and equitable in the present facts and
circumstances.
10. Counsel for the appellants has placed reliance upon
numerous decisions of this Court i.e., Central Bureau
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 3862 OF 2024 Page 5 of 20
of Investigation, ACB, Mumbai v. Narendra Lal Jain
and Others1, Gian Singh v. State of Punjab and
Another2, Gold Quest International Private Limited
v. State of Tamil Nadu and Others3, B.S. Joshi and
Others v. State of Haryana and Another4, Central
Bureau of Investigation, SPE, SIU (X), New Delhi v.
Duncans Agro Industries Ltd., Calcutta5, Nikhil
Merchant v. Central Bureau of Investigation and
Another6 and Narinder Singh and Others v. State
of Punjab and Another7, where it has been held that
the disputes which primarily and basically are civil or
financial in nature and the matter stands settled
between the parties and the aggrieved party has no
objection, such criminal proceedings can be quashed
as it would be an exercise in futility causing undue
hardship and harassment to the parties and would
amount to an abuse of process of law.
11. Prayer has thus been made for setting aside the
impugned orders passed by the High Court as well as
the Sessions Judge and uphold the Order dated
15.11.2011 of the Trial Court accepting the discharge
application of the appellants. A final prayer has been
made for quashing of the proceedings on the basis of
1
(2014) 5 SCC 364
2
(2012) 10 SCC 303
3
(2014) 15 SCC 235
4
(2003) 4 SCC 675
5
(1996) 5 SCC 591
6
(2008) 9 SCC 677
7
(2014) 6 SCC 466
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 3862 OF 2024 Page 6 of 20
the FIR as registered by the CBI and the proceedings as
a consequence thereof, including the chargesheet.
12. Counsel for the CBI on the other hand has supported
the judgment passed by the High Court as well as the
learned Sessions Judge. It is asserted that merely
because a compromise has been entered into between
the accused party and the Bank, substantial criminal
charges pending adjudication cannot be quashed. The
offences having been committed do not stand washed
away with such settlements as has been entered into
between the parties. The offences which are committed
in relation with the Bank activities have a harmful
effect on the public and threatens the well-being of the
society leading to grave moral turpitude which
constitutes these offences. The trust of the common
citizen in the Bank and financial institutions and
infrastructure of the country is shaken and, therefore,
the accused has to face the charges. Reliance has been
placed on the judgments of this Court in Central
Bureau of Investigation v. Jagjit Singh8 and State
of Maharashtra v. Vikram Anantrai Doshi and
Others9, where this Court has set aside the orders
passed in matters where the criminal charges were
quashed on the basis of compromise. Similarly,
reliance has been placed upon Parbatbhai Aahir @
8
(2013) 10 SCC 686
9
(2014) 15 2 SCC 29
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 3862 OF 2024 Page 7 of 20
Parbatbhai Bhimsinhbhai and Others v. The State
of Gujarat and Others10, where this Court held that
economic offences have implications that lie beyond the
domain of mere dispute between the private disputants
which will have implications involving the financial and
economic well being of the State.
13. Counsel has further asserted that a fraud has been
played upon the Bank of Maharashtra leading to the
loss of a huge amount through a complex chain of
Letters of Credit, obtained upon forged documents.
The accused persons entered a criminal conspiracy to
cheat the Bank of Maharashtra in sanctioning the 624
Letters of Credit in favour of the Companies owned by
the Appellants to the tune of ₹14.20 crores and
thereafter diverting the funds into the accounts of
fictitious suppliers. It is not merely a dispute in the
nature of civil/financial implications but has a wider
ramification. Thus, he prays that the present appeal
deserves dismissal by upholding the impugned orders.
14. Having considered the submissions made by the
counsel for the parties and on going through the
records of the case, the question which requires to be
looked into and replied, is with reference to the powers
of the High Court to be exercised under Section 482
CrPC as also under Article 226 of the Constitution to
10
(2017) 9 SCC 641
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 3862 OF 2024 Page 8 of 20
quash an FIR, chargesheet and the consequential
proceedings arising therefrom.
15. The aspect with regard to the powers exercisable by the
High Court while exercising its jurisdiction under
Section 482 CrPC stands concluded vide decision of
this Court in Sushil Suri v. Central Bureau of
Investigation and Another11, where it has laid down
that the inherent jurisdiction may be exercised by the
High Court, namely; (i) to give effect to an order under
the Cr.P.C.; (ii) to prevent an abuse of the process of
Court; and (iii) to otherwise secure the ends of justice.
It has also been held to be a power which, although
possessed by the High Court, has to be exercised
sparingly with great caution and care to do real and
substantial justice, for which alone, the Court exists.
The exercise of inherent power is to be kept open
exercisable by the Court depending upon the facts and
circumstances. The discretion, therefore, has been left
to the Court. The Court, thus, being the custodian and
the guardian of the said powers, although enabling,
exercises self-controlled jurisdiction.
16. With these broad principles in mind, when the facts
and circumstances of the present case are gone into,
what churns out is that it all started with the
transactions between the Appellants and the Bank of
11
(2011) 5 SCC 708
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 3862 OF 2024 Page 9 of 20
Maharashtra. The dispute cannot be said to be having
criminal overtures or aspects relatable to a crime. It is
purely a commercial transaction which has been
entered into between two parties. No official of the
Bank has been found to be involved in wrongful
issuance of Letters of Credit to the Appellants which is
apparent from the fact that although initially the
provisions under the PC Act were invoked but at the
time of submission of the chargesheet, the name of the
Bank Manager as well as the provisions of the PC Act
are found to be not included. It is unequivocally
mentioned in the chargesheet that no evidence has
been found of the involvement of the Bank officials.
The allegations against the Appellants are that of
forgery. The basic requirements thereof, as provided
under the statute are missing. Nothing has come forth
which would lead to such a conclusion.
17. In any case, the aspect with regard to the amount
which was advanced to the Appellants through the
Letters of Credit have initially been paid from the year
1998 to the year 2005. It is thereafter that there has
been default at the end of the Appellants. The
proceedings before the DRT have been initiated by the
Bank after declaring the account as NPA in the year
2008. It is during these proceedings that a One-Time
Settlement proposal, as submitted by the Appellants
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 3862 OF 2024 Page 10 of 20
was considered and finalized through the process of
negotiations, leading to a compromise settlement
between the Bank and the Appellants. The Original
Application, as preferred by the Bank before the DRT
was disposed of on 08.06.2010. No Dues Certificate
was also issued to the Appellants by the Bank of
Maharashtra on 11.04.2011, clearly indicating that
nothing was recoverable from the Appellants by the
Bank. The proceedings before the DRT ultimately stood
disposed of on 04.07.2011. The Bank has also
supported the stand of the Appellants and has no
objection to the closing of the proceedings as initiated
by the CBI, which are challenged here.
18. The insistence on the part of the CBI to prosecute the
Appellants appears to be primarily on the assumption
that offences under Sections 420, 419, 467, 468 and
471 of IPC have been committed. The said offences
and the proceedings arising therefrom, when seen,
some of those offences are compoundable and with the
matter having been amicably resolved, the Court ought
to have proceeded to quash the same.
19. As regards the other alleged offences are concerned,
this Court in its latest judgment in K. Bharthi Devi
and Another v. State of Telangana and Another12,
while considering the discretionary power of the High
12
(2024) 10 SCC 384
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 3862 OF 2024 Page 11 of 20
Court referred and considered numerous judgments of
this Court including the ones relied on by the counsel
for the parties and proceeded to elaborate the same.
The conclusions as drawn would be applicable to the
case in hand as the facts in the said case are identical
to the one in the present case. Rather, the present
case is on a better footing inasmuch as the criminal
proceedings were initiated against the Appellants
therein on the complaint of the Bank, whereas in the
present case, it is the CBI which on its own has
initiated the proceedings on the basis of information.
19.1 As in the present case, the allegations in K. Bharthi
Devi’s case were with regard to the credit facilities
having been secured through collateral security
executed by the accused persons with a declaration as
NPA due to failure to service the interest and
repayment of dues. In Original Application preferred
before the DRT it was asserted by the Bank that the
title documents executed by the accused persons were
fake, forged and fabricated. Simultaneously, a written
complaint was lodged with the CBI-Economic Offences
Wing. CBI on its part found the offences punishable
under Sections 120B read with Sections 419, 420, 467,
468 and 471 IPC as also offences under Section
13(1)(d) and Section 13(2) of the PC Act having been
committed.
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 3862 OF 2024 Page 12 of 20
19.2 During the pendency of the proceedings before the
DRT, chargesheet was filed. On the basis of the
settlement entered into between the parties, DRT
closed the proceedings against the respondents in that
case and the Bank issued a “No Dues Certificate”. It is
thereafter that they had approached the High Court for
quashing of the FIR on the basis of settlement of the
dispute. The High Court proceeded to dismiss the
petition preferred under Section 482 CrPC asserting
that there were charges of fraudulent, fake and forged
documents used to embezzle the public money and
merely because a private settlement between the Bank
and the accused has taken place, it could not be said
that the prosecution of accused person would amount
to an abuse of process of Court.
19.3 A Special Leave to Appeal was preferred and this Court,
on considering the legal position as settled by this
Court in various judgments and referring to the
judgments in Duncans Agro Industries Limited (supra)
and Nikhil Merchant (supra), proceeded to hold in paras
28 to 31 as follows: –
28. This Court found that though the offence
punishable under Section 420IPC was
compoundable under sub-section (2) of Section
320CrPC with the leave of the Court, the offence
of forgery was not included as one of the
compoundable offences. However, the Court found
that in such cases the principle enunciated in B.S.CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 3862 OF 2024 Page 13 of 20
Joshi v. State of Haryana [B.S. Joshi v. State of
Haryana, (2003) 4 SCC 675] should be applied.
29. This Court specifically noted that though it is
alleged that certain documents had been created
by the appellant therein to avail of credit facilities
beyond the limit to which the Company was
entitled, the power of quashing could be
exercised. This Court found that in view of a
compromise arrived at between the Company and
the Bank, it was a fit case where a technicality
should not be allowed to stand in the way of
quashing of the criminal proceedings. This Court
found that in view of the settlement arrived at
between the parties, continuance of the same
would be an exercise in futility.
30. A similar view was again taken by two-Judge
Bench of this Court in Manoj
Sharma v. State [Manoj Sharma v. State, (2008)
16 SCC 1] .
31. However, another two-Judge Bench of this
Court in Gian Singh v. State of Punjab [Gian
Singh v. State of Punjab, (2010) 15 SCC 118]
doubted the correctness of the view taken by this
Court in B.S. Joshi [B.S. Joshi v. State of
Haryana, (2003) 4 SCC 675] , Nikhil
Merchant [Nikhil Merchant v. CBI, (2008) 9 SCC
677], and Manoj Sharma [Manoj Sharma v. State,
(2008) 16 SCC 1] and referred the matter to a
larger Bench.”CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 3862 OF 2024 Page 14 of 20
19.4 And thereafter referring to paras 57 to 61 in Gian
Singh (supra), this Court in paras 33 to 38
observed as follows: –
“33. It could thus be seen that the learned
three-Judge Bench of this Court in Gian
Singh [Gian Singh v. State of Punjab, (2012) 10
SCC 303 : (2012) 4 SCC (Civ) 1188 : (2013) 1
SCC (Cri) 160 : (2012) 2 SCC (L&S) 988] held
that B.S. Joshi [B.S. Joshi v. State of Haryana,
(2003) 4 SCC 675 : 2003 SCC (Cri) 848] , Nikhil
Merchant [Nikhil Merchant v. CBI, (2008) 9 SCC
677 : (2008) 3 SCC (Cri) 858] , and Manoj
Sharma [Manoj Sharma v. State, (2008) 16 SCC
1 : (2010) 4 SCC (Cri) 145] were correctly
decided.
34. It has been held that there are certain
offences which overwhelmingly and
predominantly bear civil flavour having arisen
out of civil, mercantile, commercial, financial,
partnership or such like transactions or the
offences arising out of matrimony, particularly
relating to dowry, etc. or a family dispute,
where the wrong is basically to the victim and
the offender and the victim have settled all
disputes between them amicably, the High
Court would be justified in quashing the
criminal proceedings, even if the offences have
not been made compoundable.
35. In para 60 of Gian Singh [Gian
Singh v. State of Punjab, (2012) 10 SCC 303 :
(2012) 4 SCC (Civ) 1188 : (2013) 1 SCC (Cri)
160 : (2012) 2 SCC (L&S) 988] , his Lordship
considers the cases where the Court has
refused to quash the proceedings irrespective of
the settlement. The Court considers the
different factual positions arising in B.S.
Joshi [B.S. Joshi v. State of Haryana, (2003) 4
SCC 675 : 2003 SCC (Cri) 848] , Nikhil
Merchant [Nikhil Merchant v. CBI, (2008) 9 SCC
677 : (2008) 3 SCC (Cri) 858], and Manoj
Sharma [Manoj Sharma v. State, (2008) 16 SCC
1 : (2010) 4 SCC (Cri) 145] on one hand and theCRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 3862 OF 2024 Page 15 of 20
other cases where the Court refused to quash
the proceedings.
36. In the cases of the first type, this Court
found that the dispute involved had overtures of
a civil dispute but in the other line of cases, the
disputes were more on the criminal aspect than
on a civil aspect.
37. In para 61 of Gian Singh [Gian
Singh v. State of Punjab, (2012) 10 SCC 303 :
(2012) 4 SCC (Civ) 1188 : (2013) 1 SCC (Cri)
160 : (2012) 2 SCC (L&S) 988] , this Court
observes that, in which cases power to quash
the criminal proceeding or complaint or FIR may
be exercised, where the offender and the victim
have settled their dispute, would depend on the
facts and circumstances of each case. However,
the Court reiterates that the criminal cases
having an overwhelmingly and predominatingly
civil flavour stand on a different footing for the
purposes of quashing. The Court particularly
refers to the offences 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.
38. The Court finds that in such cases, the
possibility of conviction is remote and bleak and
continuation of the criminal case would put the
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.”
19.5 Further while considering the decision in Narinder
Singh case (supra) in para 41 to 43, it has been
held as follows: –
“41. It could thus be seen that this Court
reiterates the position that the criminal casesCRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 3862 OF 2024 Page 16 of 20
having overwhelmingly and predominantly civil
character, particularly those arising out of
commercial transactions or arising out of
matrimonial relationship or family disputes
should be quashed when the parties have
resolved their entire disputes among
themselves.
42. Though in the said case (Narinder
Singh [Narinder Singh v. State of Punjab, (2014)
6 SCC 466 : (2014) 3 SCC (Cri) 54] ), the High
Court had refused [Narinder Singh v. State of
Punjab CRM-M No. 27343 of 2013, order dated
8-10-2013 (P&H)] to exercise its jurisdiction
under Section 482CrPC to quash the
proceedings wherein a serious offence under
Section 307IPC was involved, this Court after
taking into consideration various factors
including that the elders of the village, including
the Sarpanch, had intervened in the matter and
the parties had not only buried their hatchet but
had decided to live peacefully in the future,
quashed and set aside the criminal proceedings
under Section 307IPC.
43. The aforesaid view has consistently been
followed by this Court in various cases
including Gold Quest International [Gold Quest
International (P) Ltd. v. State of T.N., (2014) 15
SCC 235 : (2015) 4 SCC (Cri) 631] and Sadhu
Ram Singla [CBI v. Sadhu Ram Singla, (2017) 5
SCC 350 : (2017) 2 SCC (Cri) 535] .”19.6 This Court accordingly proceeded to quash the
proceedings against the accused-Appellants therein on
coming to the conclusion that the dispute pre-
dominantly involved and had overtures of civil
disputes.
20. Now, coming to the case in hand, we have already
observed that the dispute involved is primarily of civil
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 3862 OF 2024 Page 17 of 20
nature. The aggrieved party, if any, would have been
the Bank which has no grievance against the
Appellants. Further, no loss has been caused to the
Bank as is apparent from the calculations presented by
the appellants before this Court. Not only the principal
amount has been returned but an amount over and
above thereto, on the basis of the settlement, has been
received by the Bank. The case is at the very initial
stage with the chargesheet having been filed. Keeping
in view the observations made by this court in Narinder
Singh (supra), in the facts of this case, it can safely be
said that the criminal case which has been sought to
be projected and proceeded with against the Appellants
has an overwhelming and pre-dominant civil character
arising out of pure commercial transaction where the
parties have resolved their entire dispute amongst
themselves.
21. In the light of the fact that the allegations against the
Bank Manager relating to his involvement in the
commission of offences, which has been alleged against
the Appellants, having not been substantiated, the
possibility of conviction of the appellants is remote and
bleak. Continuation of these criminal proceedings
would put the Appellants to great oppression and
prejudice and extreme injustice would be caused to
them by not quashing the criminal proceedings. It
would not be out of place to mention here that, in the
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 3862 OF 2024 Page 18 of 20
present case, the proceeding for settlement was not
only initiated but the finalization thereof in the form of
settlement took place prior to the filing of the
chargesheet against the Appellants by the CBI.
22. This Court in the case of Narinder Singh (supra), also
observed that the stage and timing of the settlement
play a crucial role in determination as to whether to
exercise power under Section 482 of the CrPC 1973 or
not. It was observed that cases where settlement has
arrived at either immediately or in close vicinity after
the alleged commission of offence and the matter is still
under investigation, the High Court may be liberal in
accepting the settlement to quash the criminal
proceeding/investigation. Likewise, in cases where
charge is framed but the evidence is not yet started or
is at the infancy stage, the High Court may exercise its
power by showing benevolence after prima facie
assessment of circumstances and material mentioned.
23. The facts in this case would be as per the above aspect
and therefore this would also persuade this Court to
accept the prayer of the Appellants to hold that the
High Court should have exercised its powers and
jurisdiction under Section 482 to quash the
proceedings.
24. In the light of the above, the prayer made in the
present appeal is accepted. The impugned order dated
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 3862 OF 2024 Page 19 of 20
05.05.2017 passed by the High Court is hereby
quashed and set aside. As a consequence thereof, the
criminal proceedings against the Appellants and arising
out of FIR RC No.13(E)/2008-CBI, BS & FC, Mumbai
are quashed. The appeal is allowed.
25. Pending application(s), if any, also stand disposed of.
……..……………………………….J.
[ ABHAY S. OKA ]
..……………………………………..J.
[ AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH ]
NEW DELHI;
APRIL 16, 2025
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 3862 OF 2024 Page 20 of 20
[ad_2]
Source link