STANDARD CHARTERED BANK & ANR. v. ENFORCEMENT OFFICER, MINISTRY OF HOME AFFAIRS & ANR.
2026 INSC 727 | Criminal Appeal Nos. 2142–2143 of 2013
Coram: J.B. Pardiwala & Manoj Misra, JJ.
Decided on: 21 July 2026.
A. Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 — Sections 482 & 397 — Inherent jurisdiction of High Court — Availability of revision not a bar.
Paras 10–15
The availability of a revisional remedy under Section 397 Cr.P.C. does not operate as a bar to the exercise of the inherent jurisdiction of the High Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C.
Both provisions operate in different fields.
Where abuse of process or ends of justice require intervention, the High Court may exercise its inherent jurisdiction notwithstanding the availability of revision.
The High Court may even treat a petition filed under Section 482 as one under Section 397, or vice versa, instead of rejecting it on a technical ground.
Relied on:
Dhariwal Tobacco Products Ltd. v. State of Maharashtra (2009) 2 SCC 370.
Prabhu Chawla v. State of Rajasthan (2016) 16 SCC 30.
Akanksha Arora v. Tanay Maben (2024).
B. Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973 — Section 61(2) Proviso — Opportunity notice — Mandatory condition precedent.
Paras 16–23
Service of an opportunity notice under the proviso to Section 61(2) FERA is a mandatory statutory pre-condition before filing a complaint under Sections 56 or 57 FERA.
Failure to comply renders the complaint incompetent and vitiates the Magistrate's order taking cognizance.
C. Opportunity notice — Meaningful opportunity — Principles of natural justice.
Paras 17–23
The opportunity contemplated under Section 61(2) must be real, adequate and meaningful.
A mere formal or technical assertion that notice was issued is insufficient.
The prosecution must establish:
issuance of notice;
proper service;
opportunity to reply;
consideration of the reply before prosecution.
Failure violates principles of natural justice.
D. Magistrate — Duty before taking cognizance under FERA.
Paras 21–23
Before taking cognizance of offences under Sections 56 or 57 FERA, the Magistrate must satisfy himself that:
the statutory opportunity notice was issued;
it was properly served;
statutory requirements under Section 61(2) were fulfilled.
Absence of such satisfaction renders cognizance illegal.
E. Article 21 Constitution — Right to speedy trial.
Paras 24–33
The constitutional guarantee of speedy trial extends to:
investigation,
inquiry,
trial,
appeal,
revision,
retrial.
Where prolonged delay is attributable to the prosecution and not to the accused, continuation of criminal proceedings violates Article 21.
F. Delay — Responsibility of prosecution.
Paras 30–33
Where:
complaint remained pending for over two decades,
summons were not diligently served,
prosecution repeatedly failed to take necessary steps,
High Court's directions for expeditious disposal were ignored,
the delay is attributable to the prosecution.
Such proceedings amount to keeping the accused in "suspended animation."
G. Inherent powers — Quashing proceedings.
Paras 34–36
Where:
mandatory statutory safeguards were violated,
prosecution failed to establish compliance,
extraordinary delay defeated the right to speedy trial,
continuation of prosecution constitutes abuse of process and proceedings deserve to be quashed.
CASE FACTS
Paras 1–9
Enforcement Directorate filed criminal complaints against Standard Chartered Bank and one of its officers alleging violations under FERA regarding foreign remittances.
Complaints were filed in 2002 concerning transactions of 1991–1992.
Appellants challenged the proceedings under Section 482 Cr.P.C.
High Court dismissed the petitions, holding that revision under Section 397 Cr.P.C. was the proper remedy and refused to quash the complaints.
Appeals were filed before the Supreme Court.
LAW ANALYSIS
I. Maintainability of petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C.
Paras 10–15
The Supreme Court reaffirmed settled law that Section 482 preserves the inherent powers of the High Court.
Availability of revision cannot extinguish that jurisdiction.
The High Court committed an error in refusing to entertain the petitions merely because revision was available.
II. Mandatory opportunity notice under Section 61(2) FERA
Paras 16–23
The Court emphasized that no criminal complaint under Section 56 FERA can be instituted unless the accused is first afforded a meaningful opportunity to demonstrate that requisite RBI permission existed.
In the present case:
no copy of the alleged opportunity notice was produced;
date of notice was never disclosed;
no proof of service was filed;
Magistrate recorded no satisfaction regarding compliance.
Consequently, cognizance itself was illegal.
III. Speedy trial under Article 21
Paras 24–33
The Court reviewed:
Abdul Rehman Antulay,
P. Ramachandra Rao,
Kailash Chandra Kapri.
Applying the balancing test, the Court found:
prosecution delayed investigation and trial for decades;
summons were not served with diligence;
prosecution repeatedly remained absent;
High Court's directions were ignored.
The delay was entirely attributable to the prosecution.
IV. Abuse of process
Paras 34–36
After nearly 23 years from filing of the complaint and more than three decades from the alleged transactions, while the trial had not progressed beyond service of summons, continuation of prosecution was held to be wholly unjust.
The proceedings deserved to be terminated.
RATIO DECIDENDI
The availability of a revisional remedy under Section 397 Cr.P.C. does not bar the exercise of inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. A complaint under Section 56 FERA cannot be validly instituted without prior compliance with the mandatory opportunity notice requirement under the proviso to Section 61(2), and the Magistrate must record satisfaction regarding such compliance before taking cognizance. Where these statutory safeguards are ignored and the prosecution is responsible for extraordinary delay infringing the accused's right to a speedy trial under Article 21, continuation of criminal proceedings constitutes abuse of process and warrants quashing.
IMPORTANT PRINCIPLES LAID DOWN
Section 482 jurisdiction survives despite availability of Section 397 revision.
High Courts should avoid dismissing petitions on technical grounds of nomenclature.
Opportunity notice under Section 61(2) FERA is mandatory.
Notice must be meaningful, not merely formal.
Magistrate must verify statutory compliance before cognizance.
Right to speedy trial extends from investigation till conclusion of criminal proceedings.
Delay attributable to prosecution violates Article 21.
Extraordinary prosecutorial delay justifies quashing criminal proceedings.
FINAL DECISION
Paras 35–38
Appeals allowed.
Judgment of the High Court set aside.
Criminal complaints and summoning orders quashed against the appellants.
Registry directed to circulate a copy of the judgment to all High Courts.
Pending applications disposed of.
