1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.589 OF 2008 WITH CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.189 OF 2008 DSL Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. and another ..Petitioners. Vs. Maharashtra State Electricity Distribution Company Limited and Others ..Respondents. .... Mr. Adhik Shirodkar, Senior Advocate with Mrs. Swati Deshpande i/b S. Mahomedbhai & Co. for the Petitioners. Mr. Nagender Rai, Senior Advocate with Mr. Abhishek Khare, Mr. Ravi Prakash, Mr. Chandra Prakash i/b Khare Legal Chambers for Respondent No.1. Mrs. M.M. Deshmukh, APP for the State. .... CORAM: SMT. RANJANA DESAI and, DR. D.Y. CHANDRACHUD, JJ. 6th August, 2008. P.C. : 1. It is pointed out to us that after filing of this Petition, the Petitioners have filed Criminal Misc. Petition No. 11481 of 2008 in the Supreme Court where they have prayed that in view of the statement made by the Respondents herein in the reply dated 26th February, 2006 filed in the appellate proceedings pertaining to the arbitral award dated 18th June, 2004, they may be permitted to 2 revive and prosecute their criminal complaints which were withdrawn being Nos. 4493 of 2004, 4586 of 2004 and 4690 of 2004 filed before the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Nasik. The said Criminal Misc. Petition is pending. In view of the fact that the Supreme Court is seized of the several issues raised in this Writ Petition, it will not be possible for us to entertain it. At this stage, Mr. Shirodkar, learned counsel seeks permission to withdraw the Writ Petition. He, however, points out that a patently false statement is made in the affidavit filed in the present Writ petition by one Mr. U.G. Zalte, Chief Engineer of the First and Second Respondents. In that affidavit submissions recorded by the learned Single Judge in the order dated 3rd August, 2005 in Arbitration Petition No.374 of 2004 have been described as the findings of the Learned Single Judge. We have been taken through that affidavit and we find substance in Mr. Shirodkar's grievance. At this stage learned counsel appearing for respondent No.1 says that this statement is the result of an inadvertent error. On behalf of the first and second respondents he tenders an unconditional apology for it. We accept his unconditional apology. In view of this, the petition is allowed to be withdrawn and is disposed of as such. 3 2. We, however, make it clear that we have not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case and all contentions of both the sides are kept open. 3. Needless to say that after the Supreme Court delivers its judgment in the Petitioner's pending petition, the Petitioners will be at liberty to adopt appropriate proceedings in the light of the said judgment if the circumstances so demand. 4. In view of the withdrawal of the petition, Criminal Application No.189 of 2008 does not survive and is accordingly disposed of. (SMT. RANJANA DESAI, J.) (DR. D.Y. CHANDRACHUD, J.)