[-1-] IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL W.P.NO.52 OF 2005 Guru Swarup Srivastava ..Petitioner Vs. Shri.S.S.Giri and Ors. ..Respondents ... Mr.J.P.Cama senior advocate along with Mr.M.G.Gawade & Mr.Girish Kulkarni Advs. for petitioner Mr.R.F.Lambay counsel for Respondent nos. 1 and 2 Mr.Ashish Sable i/b M/s. Goenka Law Associates for Respondent no.5 ... CORAM: SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J. CORAM: SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J. CORAM: SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI,J. DATE : OCTOBER 17, 2008 DATE : OCTOBER 17, 2008 DATE : OCTOBER 17, 2008 P.C. P.C. P.C. 1. Heard the learned senior advocate for the petitioner-original accused, the learned counsel for the respondent nos.1 and 2-original complainant and the learned advocate for Respondent no.5. 2. The petitioner was the Branch Manager of complainant-Bank at the relevant time. There were lapses and irregularities on the part of the petitioner in respect of recovery of the liabilities incurred by M/s.S.I.M.R. Pvt.Ltd. The material on record shows that there were [-2-] negotiations between Punjab Bank and M/s.S.R.M.R. for settlement of the dispute, however, the said settlement talks failed. Complaint under Section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of the Corruption Act and 420 of IPC came to be filed against the petitioner. Thereafter the bank addressed a letter to the Central Bureau of Investigation stating that settlement has been arrived at with the party in respect of recovery of dues of M/s.S.I.M.R.Pvt.Ltd. and there are no dues against the company and co-obligants including the petitioner. In fact, the bank of the petitioner had also filed compromise petition before the lower Court and they prayed for compounding of the offence. The learned Special Judge by order dated 15.10.2008 compounded the offence only under Section 420 of IPC as the offence under the Prevention of Corruption Act was not compoundable. 3. The learned counsel for the respondent-bank i.e. the original complainant has stated that both the parties have arrived at compromise. He further stated that the claim is already paid and nothing further survives. He further stated that the matter has been amicably settled between the [-3-] parties and the complainant does not wish to pursue his complaint. Hence, the complaint be quashed. 4. Mr.Lambay, the learned counsel for respondent nos.1 and 2 states that the case is not only under section 420 of IPC but it is also under the provisions of Prevention of Corruption Act and hence, the proceedings cannot be quashed on the ground that the parties have settled the dispute among themselves. 5. Mr.J.P.Cama, the learned senior advocate for the petitioner has placed reliance on the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Nikhil Merchant Nikhil Merchant Nikhil Merchant Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation and another, Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation and another, Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation and another, reported in 2008 INDLAW SC 1321. 2008 INDLAW SC 1321. 2008 INDLAW SC 1321. The said case is under sections 420, 467, 468, 471A of IPC and under Section 5(2) and 5(1)(d) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 and Sections 13(2) r.w. 13(1)(d) of Prevention Corruption Act, 1988. Mr. Cama submitted that in the said case also the dispute between the Bank and the accused had been settled on the basis of compromise arrived at by them whereunder the dues of the bank had been cleared. Looking to this fact, the Apex Court [-4-] quashed the said proceedings. The said decision is fully applicable to the facts of the present case. Hence, I am inclined to take a similar view in the present case. Moreover, in view of the fact that matter has been amicably settled between the parties and looking to the fact that complainant does not wish to pursue the complaint, in my opinion, no purpose would be served by continuing with the prosecution of the said case. Hence, Special Case No.66 of 1999 pending in the Court of Special Judge (CBI-ACB) for Greater Mumbai at Mumbai, is quashed. 6. At this stage, Mr.Lambay, the learned counsel for the respondent nos.1 and 2 prays for stay of this order as he wishes to challenge this order before the Apex Court. In view of the said request, this order is stayed for a period of six weeks from today. 7. Petition is disposed of accordingly. [SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI, J.] [SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI, J.] [SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI, J.]