1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MUMBAI APPELLATE CRIMINAL JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.2029 OF 2009 Asha Kirti Sanjanwala ..Applicant. v. The Superintendent of Police, CBI, State of Maharashtra ...Respondent. WITH CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.2030 OF 2009 WITH CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.2031 OF 2009 WITH CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.194 OF 2010 WITH CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.196 OF 2010 Kirit Sanjanwala & Anr. ...Applicants. v. The Department of Police & Anr. ...Respondents. Mr.N.K.Thakore i/by Prakash Naik,advs. For the Applicants. Mr.S.K.Shinde a/w S.R.Shinde, advs. For the Respondent/CBI. Ms.M.H.Mhatre, APP for the Respondent/State. CORAM : J.H. BHATIA, J. DATED : JUNE 28, 2010 P.C. 1 With consent, criminal applications are taken up for final hearing and disposal. 2 All these applications are filed by three different accused persons in Special Case No.77 of 1997 pending before the Special Judge 2 (C.B.I.), Bombay. They seek to quash the said proceedings. It appears that some financial transactions had taken place between firms/companies of the accused persons and Central Bank of India, Share Bazar Branch, Bombay from 1986 onwards. The accused persons failed to make the payments in spite of having taken huge loan facilities. Later on, on report lodged by the bank, the offence was registered with the C.B.I. and after investigation, chargesheet was filed against all the accused and some officers of the bank. That case is pending since 1997 and the learned counsel for the applicants makes a statement that so far charge has not been framed. It appears that the charge-sheet was filed in 1997. These applications to quash the proceedings were filed on 16th April, 2009, i.e., almost 12 years after the filing of the charge-sheet. The learned counsel also points out that meanwhile, bank had also filed some civil suits for the recovery of the money wherein the property of the accused persons was attached and Court Receiver was appointed, who has taken possession of the same. Taking into consideration the circumstances and particularly, the delay of about 12 years in filing these applications, I am not inclined to interfere and to quash the proceedings at this stage. Infact, the matter is so old that by this time, this matter should have been finally heard and disposed off. Therefore, in my 3 opinion, following order will meet the ends of justice: i. If charge is not so far framed, the trial Court shall hear the parties and frame the charge, if there is sufficient material for the same, within two months from this date and thereafter, the trial shall be expedited and the case shall be finally disposed off by the end of 2010. 3 The learned counsel for the accused contends that the accused persons or their companies/firms had mortgaged or hypotheticated certain property with the bank for sanction of such loans or overdraft facilities. If that record is not already produced by the investigating agency, Court may call that record also, from the bank or CBI and that record may be considered while hearing the parties for the purpose of framing the charge. 4 Applications stand disposed off accordingly. 5 Rule discharged accordingly. 6 As the main matters are finally disposed off, Criminal Application Nos.194 and 196 of 2010 do not survive and stands disposed off accordingly. (J.H. BHATIA,J.)