Quashing of criminal prosecution after exoneration in adjudication where the same FERA allegations lacked fresh supporting evidence

Criminal prosecution under FERA may be quashed in inherent jurisdiction where adjudication on the same charges and material has already exonerated the accused and the prosecution relies on no additional evidence. The Bombay High Court noted that adjudication and criminal proceedings are distinct, but where the complaint is founded on identical transactions, documents and allegations, the earlier finding that the statements were retracted, uncorroborated and insufficient must receive due weight. In the absence of fresh supporting material, continuation of the criminal case would serve no useful purpose and amount to abuse of process. The proceedings were therefore terminated under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

---

---

Issues: Whether criminal prosecution under FERA could be quashed under the inherent jurisdiction of the High Court after the applicants had been exonerated in adjudication proceedings on the same charges and on the same material.

Analysis: The adjudicating authority had concluded that the charges under the relevant provisions of FERA failed and that the statements relied upon were retracted, unsupported by independent corroboration, and insufficient to sustain the allegations. The criminal complaint rested on the very same transactions, documents, and allegations. While adjudication and criminal prosecution are distinct proceedings and one does not automatically bar the other, the Court held that the result of adjudication must be given due regard where the material and charges are identical. In the absence of any additional material beyond what had already been rejected in adjudication, continuation of the criminal case would serve no useful purpose and would amount to abuse of process.

Conclusion: The criminal proceedings were liable to be quashed in exercise of Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

Final Conclusion: The applications succeeded, and the criminal prosecution was terminated because the same allegations had already failed in adjudication proceedings.

Ratio Decidendi: Where criminal prosecution and adjudication proceedings are founded on identical charges and the same material, and the adjudication concludes in favour of the accused without any additional supporting evidence for the prosecution, continuation of the criminal case may be quashed as an abuse of process in exercise of inherent powers.

---