1 Appln.No.: 3607 of 2009 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.3607 OF 2009 Mr. Ketan Manharlal Parekh .... Applicant Vs. C.B.I. & Ors. .... Respondents Mr. Milan Desai, Advocate for applicant. Mr. D.N. Salvi, Advocate for C.B.I. Coram : SMT. R.P. SONDURBALDOTA, J. Date : 5th August, 2010 P.C. : 1. This application is nothing but a second attempt on the part of the applicant for getting the criminal proceedings filed against him quashed. The first attempt was by way of Criminal Writ Petition No.96 of 2009, by which the applicant had challenged the order dated 15th December 2008 passed by the learned Special Judge rejecting his application for compounding the case against him. The dismissal of the application, was both, for want of necessary powers, as well as, on merit. The writ petition came to be dismissed by the order dated 17th April 2009. At paragraph 4 of the order, this Court had specifically noted that the writ petition was argued by the learned counsel for the applicant as if it was an independent petition filed under Section 482 Code of Criminal Procedure for quashing of the criminal proceedings and not merely to challenge the order of the 2 Appln.No.: 3607 of 2009 learned Special Judge. The court had then considered in detail the arguments advanced for quashing of the proceedings and for the reasons stated in the order, rejected the same. The applicant had then preferred Special Leave to Appeal (Criminal) No.4534 of 2009 to the Hon ble Supreme ’ Court. However, when the appeal was to be taken up for admission, the applicant sought to withdraw the same stating that he would like to file a comprehensive petition under Section 482 Code of Criminal Procedure for quashing of the complaint in view of the settlement between the parties. Accordingly without observing anything on the petition, the Special Leave Petition was dismissed as withdrawn. In view of withdrawal of the petition, all the observations made in the order dated 17th April 2009 on quashing of the proceedings have remained unchallenged and as such are confirmed. There can be no reconsideration of the entire material merely because the applicant has chosen to file a separate petition under Section 482 Code of Criminal Procedure. In any case as has been pointed out by Mr. Salvi, the learned Counsel for C.B.I., trial in Special Case No. 25 of 1996 has already commenced. The prosecution has so far examined four witnesses. I proposes to examine eight more witnesses in the matter before closing its case. In that circumstance, there can no question of quashing the proceedings. Hence, the Criminal Application is dismissed. (Smt. R.P. SondurBaldota, J)