Successive quashing petitions and non-binding civil findings failed to stop criminal proceedings, with costs imposed for abuse of process.

Successive petitions under Section 482 CrPC seeking quashing of FIRs were held not maintainable where earlier challenges had been dismissed or withdrawn and the later company-court and Supreme Court developments did not produce any factual finding in favour of the petitioners. The Court held that findings in civil or company proceedings do not bind criminal courts because the standards of proof differ, and the later dismissal of related proceedings was not a material ground to interfere with the criminal prosecution. Treating the petitions as a repeated attempt to delay the trial, the Court declined to quash the FIRs or related proceedings and imposed costs for abuse of process.

---

---

Issues: Whether the successive petitions under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 seeking quashing of the FIRs were maintainable in the light of earlier withdrawals and repeated failed challenges, and whether the later dismissal of the company appeal and special leave petition constituted a material subsequent development justifying interference.

Analysis: The earlier quashing attempts had either been dismissed or withdrawn with liberty to raise the issues before the trial court. The Court held that the subsequent company proceedings did not yield any finding of fact in favour of the petitioners and were not germane to the criminal prosecution. It further held that findings in civil or company proceedings do not bind criminal courts, particularly where the standards of proof differ. The Court also noted the repeated and unsuccessful efforts by the petitioners to stall the criminal cases and treated the present petitions as another attempt to delay the proceedings.

Conclusion: The petitions were not maintainable on the facts and were liable to be rejected; the Court declined to quash the FIRs or the related proceedings.

Final Conclusion: The criminal proceedings were allowed to continue, and the petitioners were saddled with costs for abusing the process of the Court.

---