1 WP : 2697/2010 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.2697 OF 2010 N.V. Satyanarayana .... Petitioner Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation .... Respondents Mumbai & Anr. Mr. Unnikrishnan i/by Ms. Shakuntala Wadekar, Advocate for Petitioner. Ms. Rebecca Gonsalves, Advocate for respondent no.1. Mrs. A.S. Pai, APP for State. Coram : Smt. R.P.SondurBaldota, J. Date : 2nd August, 2011 P.C. 1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. 2. This writ petition seeks quashing of Special Case No.80 of 1998 pending before the Special Judge, Mumbai. The petitioner is accused no.5 in the complaint. He alongwith other accused has been charge-sheeted for the offences punishable under Sections 120(b), 420, 467, 468, 471(a) Indian Penal Code and 5(2) read with 5(1)(c)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947. 2 WP : 2697/2010 3. The applicant, at the relevant time was Officer of Andhra Bank. One Mr. Nikhil Merchant had availed some loan facilities for his company from Andhra Bank in the year 1986. There was default in repayment of the loan in the year 1998. The bank, then filed a CBI complaint. During the investigation, it was realised that the petitioner along with accused persons has committed criminal conspiracy and advanced huge amount of loan to accused no.4, a company by name M/s Numech Embelleg. The petitioner being officer of the bank had fraudulently recommended for sanction of the loan proposal of accused no.4. The recommendation was made without verifying the stocks shown by the accused no.4, consequently the bank sustained losses. 4. Nikhil Merchant was the Managing Director of M/s Numech Embelleg. It appears that in the proceedings for recovery of the dues of the bank filed in the Debt Recovery Tribunal, the consent decree was passed between the bank and him and in the consent decree, it was agreed that the parties shall withdraw all the allegations and counter allegations against each other. In view of the consent decree, Nikhil Merchant filed 3 WP : 2697/2010 an application for discharge, which application was finally allowed by the Apex Court. 5. Desiring to take advantage of the order passed in favour of Nikhil Merchant, the applicant herein also filed an application for discharge. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that since the main accused himself has been discharged from the proceedings, the prosecution of the applicant cannot be continued and in fact there is no point in continuing. The petitioners application for discharge came to be rejected by the Special Judge by its order dated 22nd December 2009. 6. Merely because the managing director of M/s Numech Embelleg has been discharged, in view of the compromise arrived at between the parties, the petitioner herein cannot seek discharge, since he has been, in addition, charge-sheeted for the offences punishable under the Prevention of Corruption Act. The application for discharge filed by the petitioner therefore was misconceived application and has been rightly rejected by the Special Court. There is no merit whatsoever in the petition. Hence, the petition is dismissed in limine. (Smt. R.P. SondurBaldota, J)