Criminal Procedure — Revision — Discharge application — Economic offences — One-Time Settlement — Effect of bank settlement on criminal liability — Interim stay granted Where petitioners availed high-value bank credit, later settled liabilities under a sanctioned One-Time Settlement (OTS) and were issued a No-Due Certificate by the bank, but were subsequently prosecuted for alleged misutilisation of funds and false documentation, the High Court admitted a criminal revision challenging dismissal of a discharge application and, relying on recent Supreme Court rulings (N.S. Gnaneshwaran and K. Bharathi Devi), granted interim stay of proceedings including personal appearance, pending revision. State reliance on Parbatbhai Bhimsinhbhai Patel principles on economic offence gravity was noted but distinguished, as the SC precedents cited by petitioners were latest in point of time and factually comparable. (KVR Exim Pvt. Ltd. & others v. CBI, CRLRC No.1364 of 2025, decided on 05-12-2025, per Dr. Y. Lakshmana Rao, J.)

Criminal Procedure — Revision — Discharge application — Economic offences — One-Time Settlement — Effect of bank settlement on criminal liability — Interim stay granted

Where petitioners availed high-value bank credit, later settled liabilities under a sanctioned One-Time Settlement (OTS) and were issued a No-Due Certificate by the bank, but were subsequently prosecuted for alleged misutilisation of funds and false documentation, the High Court admitted a criminal revision challenging dismissal of a discharge application and, relying on recent Supreme Court rulings (N.S. Gnaneshwaran and K. Bharathi Devi), granted interim stay of proceedings including personal appearance, pending revision. State reliance on Parbatbhai Bhimsinhbhai Patel principles on economic offence gravity was noted but distinguished, as the SC precedents cited by petitioners were latest in point of time and factually comparable.

(KVR Exim Pvt. Ltd. & others v. CBI, CRLRC No.1364 of 2025, decided on 05-12-2025, per Dr. Y. Lakshmana Rao, J.)

II. ANALYSIS OF FACTS AND LAW

1. Procedural Background

The petitioners (A1–A5) filed a criminal revision under Sections 438 and 442 BNSS seeking to set aside the order dated 30.10.2025 passed in Crl.M.P.1122/2024 in C.C.220/2023 by the Court of the V Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class-cum-Judge for CBI Cases (Non-PC Act), Vijayawada.
Their discharge application had been dismissed, prompting revision.

An interlocutory application under Section 528 BNSS sought stay of all further proceedings including personal appearance.

2. Petitioners’ Case

Counsel relied on:

• N.S. Gnaneshwaran v. Inspector of Police (2025 LiveLaw SC 654)

• K. Bharathi Devi v. State of Telangana (2024) 10 SCC 384

where the Supreme Court quashed charges following full settlement between bank and debtor, thereby extinguishing criminal consequences in similar contexts.

3. CBI’s Opposition

The Special Public Prosecutor cited:

• State of Maharashtra v. Vikram Anantrai Dishi (2024) 15 SCC 29

• Parbatbhai Bhimsinhbhai Patel v. State of Gujarat (2017) 9 SCC 641

to argue:

• Economic offences impact State interest beyond private disputation.

• Courts must exercise 482 jurisdiction with greater circumspection.

• Quashing is unwarranted when allegations concern financial/economic fraud.

4. The Court’s Assessment

The Court held:

• Whether petitioners are entitled to discharge is debatable.

• But facts of present case align with Gnaneshwaran and Bharathi Devi, both being latest Supreme Court pronouncements forming current stare decisis.

• Settlement history merits interim judicial protection.

5. Material Case Background

Facts noted:

• Petitioners obtained ₹10 crore cash credit and ₹7 crore Letter of Credit.

• The account later became NPA, leading to DRT proceedings.

• A One-Time Settlement ensued and a No-Due Certificate dated 15-12-2000 was issued by the bank.

• FIR filed on 20-07-2016, alleging misutilisation and false documentation.

• During investigation, bank officials were deleted from array of accused.

The Court emphasised advanced age of petitioners and the fact that entity petitioners were represented by petitioner No.2.

6. Legal Principle Emerging

The order implies a balancing approach:

• Economic offence gravity doctrine (Parbatbhai) must be read with

• latest Supreme Court holdings enabling termination of prosecution where banking dispute is extinguished through statutory settlement

Hence, admission and interim stay pending detailed adjudication became justified.

III. CONCLUSION

• The criminal revision was admitted.

• Respondent granted liberty to file a detailed counter.

• Records were directed to be called for from Trial Court.

• The Court stayed all further proceedings in C.C.220/2023, including personal appearance of petitioners, pending disposal of the revision.

• The matter was listed after six weeks.