1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 185 OF 2010 Mr. Jayant Ramdas Kanani. ... Applicant. V/s. The State of Maharashtra & Ors. ... Respondents. Mr. A.H.H. Ponda for the Applicant. Ms. S.V. Gajare, APP for the State. CORAM : S.C. DHARMADHIKARI,J. DATED : 28th JANUARY 2010. P.C. :- Heard Mr. Ponda, learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the Applicant. The Applicant is a Complainant and at whose instance the Criminal law is set in motion. He has now prayed that the complaint filed by him being C.C. No. 2268/SW/2005, pending on the file of the learned Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, 38th Court, Ballard Pier, Mumbai be quashed in exercise of this Court’s inherent powers. 2. The Criminal Complaint, copy of which has been annexed to this application alleges that the five Accused and the Applicant had entered into a commercial transaction whereunder monies were advanced to the Complainant, there is a dispute during the course of payment and hence proceedings were initiated initially in the Debt Recovery Tribunal. Thereafter, finding that the Bank is seeking to recover something which is allegedly not due and payable so 2 also on scrutiny of the documents, the Criminal Complaint has been filed. 3. All this while both sides were considering putting an end to their matter amicably. A one-time settlement proposal was also discussed and eventually finalized. 4. Both the Complainant and the Accused request for closure of Criminal proceedings in the peculiar facts of this case. Although, reliance is placed upon a decision of the Supreme Court reported in AIR 2008 SC 1968 & 1969 (Jagdish Chanana & Ors. V/s. State of Haryana & Anr.), I am of the opinion that the Judgments do not lay down a principle which can be pressed into service in every such case. Everything ultimately depends upon, nature of the allegations and the Criminal prosecution so also the charges levelled therein. 5. However, without entering into any larger controversy and considering that in the present complaint beyond institution of the same from last four years the matter has not progressed even till the stage of framing of charges the prayer can be granted. The complaint is still pending but no steps having been taken even at the initial stage and when the charges are also not framed, then, in the peculiar facts the request can be considered favourably. It is bearing in mind that the Bank has decided to close the matter as far as recovery of its dues is concerned so also the Applicant – Complainant has paid this sum as per the proposal, no useful 3 purpose will be served by keeping the Criminal proceedings pending since the matter has not progressed for last four and half years and even charges are not framed so also the Complainant stating that he is unable to remain present for even deposing as witness on account of his illness, the Application is granted. The Criminal proceedings, in question, are quashed. Application allowed accordingly. (S.C. DHARMADHIKARI,J.)