A.S. OKA, J.:

1. We had earlier put the parties to the notice that the Petition will be decided finally at the stage of admission. Accordingly, we have heard learned counsel appearing for the Petitioners, the learned APP for the first Respondent and the learned counsel appearing for the second Respondent.

2. The prayer in this Petition is for quashing the proceedings of criminal case on the basis of First Information Report No.161 of 2011 registered at the instance of the second Respondent with Kalamboli Police Station, Navi Mumbai. We may note here that when the Petition was filed, charge sheet was already filed but perhaps the Petitioners were not aware of the same. But for the orders passed by the earlier Bench, we would have relegated the Petitioners to the Trial Court. When the Petition appeared before this Court on 21 st September, 2011, the following order was passed: “1. Even in this matter which is arising out of counter complaint between the parties (Writ Petition No.2597/2011 disposed of by separate order today), learned A.P.P. States that on instructions of A.P.I. Mr. Arun Katkar, A.P.M.C. Police Station, Navi Mumbai, that chargesheet has been filed before the appropriate Court. If it is so, the petitioners will have to pursue remedy before the appropriate Court, if so advised. 2. Counsel for the petitioners prays for time to take instructions. We make it clear that if the petitioners intend to pursue present Petition may have to give up their right to apply for discharge before the concerned Court as the grounds raised for quashing of F.I.R. And chargesheet would be same and overlapping with the grounds of discharge. Stand over to tomorrow i.e. 22 nd September, 2011 under caption withdrawal. (emphasis added) When the Petition appeared before this Court on 12 th October, 2011, the following order was passed. Counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners agree to pursue this petition on clear understanding that they may not be entitled to pursue remedy of discharge before the trial Court if the grounds raised in the present petition as amended, were to be decided by this Court one way or the other on merits. In other words, the petitioners intend to pursue remedy only before this Court. Accordingly, place this matter for admission on 18.10.2011.

3. Thus, a conjoint reading of the aforesaid two orders shows that when this Petition was placed before the earlier Bench, on the statement of the learned counsel appearing for the Petitioners that the Petitioners will pursue this Petition on a clear understanding that they will not be entitled to pursue a remedy of discharge before the Trial Court, this Court decided to entertain this Petition on merits. The order dated 12 th October, 2011 has been passed after hearing learned counsel appearing for the second Respondent. Therefore, we are not entertaining the preliminary objection raised by the second Respondent that in view of the availability of remedy of applying for discharge, the present petition should not be entertained. The submission of the learned counsel appearing for the Petitioners is that this is a clear case of abuse of process of law and, therefore, the Petition needs to be entertained.

4. According to the case of the Petitioners, they are the employees of Nilkamal Limited and are posted in a store of the said Company by the name At Home Furniture and Furnishing at Vashi, Navi Mumbai. According to the case of the Petitioners, the first Petitioner is the Assistant Store Manager and incharge of the said store, who is responsible for keeping the stock in the store. It is alleged that the said Company deals in furniture, furnishing, artifacts and other allied home decor products. It is alleged that the second Petitioner is an assembler whose duties comprise of delivering the goods to the customers and assembling furniture in the premises of the customers. One Surendra Lamani, the son of the second Respondent was working as an Associate Cust