1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.1240 OF 2010 Nemichand Jayalal Gupta .... Petitioner. Vs. R.K. Dwivedy & Anr. .... Respondents Mrs. M.S. Mohite, Advocate for Petitioner. Mrs. P.H. Kantharia, APP. for State. Coram : Smt. R.P.SondurBaldota, J. Date : 11th July, 2011 P.C. 1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. 2. This petition challenges the order dated 17th March 2010 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Thane who refused permission for withdrawal of the complaint by Assistant Commissioner,Central Excise, Mumbai City. The complaint relates to alleged evasion of excise duty by the petitioner. The complaint was sought to be withdrawn by respondent no.1 in view of the fact that the CEGAT had set aside the order of penalty imposed by the Competent Authority. Thereafter the Competent Authority passed the order 2 dated 23rd October 2008 granting immunity to the petitioner from prosecution for all the offences. The learned Public Prosecutor appearing in the complaint strongly objected to the withdrawal of the proceedings on the ground that it was sought to be done at the fag end of the proceedings i.e. at the stage of recording statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C., It has been pending for the statement since the year 2004. The learned Prosecutor also felt that it is necessary for him to be satisfied that the withdrawal of the proceedings would serve the public interest. After considering the submissions from both the sides, the learned Magistrate rejected the application. 3. Apparently there was some confusion in the minds of the learned Public Prosecutor and the learned Magistrate about withdrawal of the prosecution by the State and withdrawal of the proceedings by respondent no.1, the complainant. I have gone through the impugned order. The reasons given in the impugned order justifying the rejection of the application cannot be sustained. Since the respondent no.1 has already given immunity to the applicant from prosecution, there was no question of continuing with the criminal proceedings against the applicant. 4. Notice of the present petition has been served upon respondent no. 3 1, the original complainant. Despite service of notice, none appears for respondent no.1. It is obvious that in view of the immunity granted to the applicant, respondent no.1 is no more interested in the pending prosecution. The Rule is therefore made absolute in terms of prayer clause (a). The petition is disposed off accordingly. (Smt. R.P.SondurBaldota, J)