Mandatory Opportunity Notice Under Section 61(2) FERA Cannot Be Bypassed Before Prosecution; Section 482 CrPC Petition Cannot Be Rejected Merely Because Revision Under Section 397 Is Available: Supreme Court
Case Name: Standard Chartered Bank v. Enforcement Officer, Ministry of Home Affairs & Anr.
Date of Judgment: 21 July 2026
Citation: 2026 INSC 727
Bench: Justice J.B. Pardiwala and Justice Manoj Misra
Held: The Supreme Court held that the availability of a revisional remedy under Section 397 CrPC does not by itself bar the High Court from exercising its inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 CrPC, and a petition cannot be rejected on such a hyper-technical ground. It further held that service of an opportunity notice under the proviso to Section 61(2) FERA is a mandatory pre-condition to filing a complaint under Sections 56 or 57, and the Magistrate must satisfy himself that a meaningful and adequate opportunity was actually afforded before taking cognizance. In the present case, neither the notice nor proof of its service was produced. The Court also found that the extraordinary delay i.e. 23 years since institution of the complaint and more than three decades since the underlying transaction, with the case not progressing beyond service of summons, coupled with persistent prosecutorial inaction, offended the appellant’s right to speedy trial under Article 21.
Summary: Standard Chartered Bank challenged two criminal complaints instituted in 2002 for alleged violations of FERA relating to foreign exchange transactions dating back to 1991-92. The Bombay High Court declined to quash the complaints and summoning orders, inter alia, on the ground that the Bank had an alternative remedy of revision under Section 397 CrPC instead of invoking Section 482 CrPC. The Supreme Court rejected this approach and reiterated that the existence of revisional jurisdiction does not extinguish the High Court’s inherent powers, particularly where intervention is necessary to prevent abuse of process or secure the ends of justice.
On the FERA prosecution, the Court held that the opportunity contemplated under the proviso to Section 61(2) is mandatory and must be meaningful. Although the Enforcement authorities claimed that such notice had been served, they failed to disclose its date, produce a copy, or furnish proof of service despite opportunities before the Magistrate, High Court and Supreme Court. The Magistrate had also taken cognizance without recording satisfaction regarding compliance with this statutory requirement. The Court consequently held that the prosecution suffered from violation of the mandatory statutory safeguard as well as principles of natural justice.
The Court additionally examined the delay from the standpoint of Article 21. The complaint was filed in May 2002, yet summons were not collected for nearly two years and, for several years thereafter, the proceedings remained frozen at the stage of service of process. The Court attributed the delay substantially to the prosecution, noting repeated failures to take necessary steps and even non-compliance with time-bound directions issued by the High Court. With 23 years having elapsed since the complaint and more than three decades since the alleged transactions, continuation of the prosecution would leave the appellant in an impermissible state of “suspended animation.”
Decision: The Supreme Court allowed the appeals, set aside the judgment and quashed Criminal Case along with the summoning order insofar as Standard Chartered Bank was concerned. The Court held that continuation of the proceedings was unjustified in view of the failure to comply with the mandatory requirement under Section 61(2) FERA and the extraordinary delay in prosecution.