The origins of this case date back to October 14, 2000, when the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) initiated an inquiry based on credible information. An FIR was lodged against five individuals, including Ajay Kumar Behera, the former Branch Manager of the bank, and the two women, who were partners in a travel firm. The allegations included serious offenses under the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and the Prevention of Corruption Act, highlighting unauthorized loan approvals and a lack of repayment.

It was alleged that between 1998 and 1999, Behera sanctioned loans amounting to over Rs. 20 lakh without proper security measures. The CBI claimed that the loan applications submitted by the travel firm, Clarion Travels, and another entity, Indo Global Projects Ltd. (IGPL), were part of a larger conspiracy to defraud the bank. Notably, both firms shared the same office address, raising suspicions about their operations.

However, a turning point in the proceedings occurred when the accused firms entered into a One-Time Settlement (OTS) with the bank, effectively closing their loan accounts. The settlement, completed in 2011, involved a payment of Rs. 7.5 lakh, leading to the disposal of the bank's recovery applications.

In light of this settlement, the two women filed petitions under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC) before the High Court of Orissa, seeking to quash the ongoing criminal proceedings. They argued that since the matter had been amicably resolved with the bank, pursuing criminal charges would be futile.

Despite the compelling arguments presented by the appellants, the High Court initially allowed them to present their pleas at the trial court but did not quash the proceedings. Displeased with this outcome, the appellants escalated the matter to the Supreme Court.

In its decision, the Supreme Court emphasized the need to consider the nature of the allegations and the resolution achieved with the bank. The court noted that the original accused, including key conspirators, had passed away, further complicating the prosecution's case. The bench underscored that continuing with the criminal proceedings against the women, especially given their lack of active involvement, would be unjust.

The court's ruling aligns with its previous judgments that advocate for quashing criminal proceedings in cases where private disputes have been amicably resolved, especially in commercial and financial contexts. The Supreme Court ultimately quashed the High Court's order and the ongoing proceedings against the appellants.

This landmark judgment not only underscores the importance of settling financial disputes amicably but also highlights the judicial system's willingness to prioritize justice and fairness over mere procedural adherence. The Supreme Court's decision has brought closure to a protracted legal battle for the two women, allowing them to move on from the allegations that had clouded their lives for years.