Sonia Gokani, J.

1. The petitioners in Special Criminal Application No. 5153 of 2015 have preferred this petition under Articles 14, 19, 21, 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India read with Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short, the Code), for payment of compensation to them for the loss of interest and other costs due to non-compliance of the directions of this Court.

2. The facts in capsulized form are as follows:

"The petitioners are the original accused in Criminal Inquiry Case No. 4 of 2005, registered with DCB Police Station, Surat. The petitioners preferred Criminal Misc. Application No. 2697 of 2005 for quashing the said criminal case. On 10.08.2005, this Court granted the interim relief in favour of the petitioners, subject to the petitioners depositing an amount of Rs. 14,25,000/- with the trial Court, i.e. with Respondent Nos. 2 and 3, herein. Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 were also directed to invest the same in any nationalized bank in Fixed Deposits Receipts (for short, FDR). The order dated 10.08.2005 passed by this Court (Coram: Jayant Patel, J.) deserves reproduction at this stage:

"1. Heard Mr. Raju, Ld. counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Gohil, Ld. APP for the State, Mr. Munshi for the respondent No. 2-original complainant.

2. Prima-facie, it appears that it is not the case of the original complainant that the signature was forged or that there was any bogus document or that any other document is fabricated and, on the contrary, the complaint itself shows that there was power of attorney executed and the document executed shows that the signature is in the capacity as Power of Attorney and, therefore, prima facie, it does not make out a case for fabrication of any document or forgery. However, so far as the allegations made in the complaint for demand of consideration received by the Power of Attorney-holder to be accounted to the original complainant as principal is concerned, it is the case petitioner that the amount is paid and there are witnesses for such purpose. Still, however, the petitioner has shown willingness to deposit the full amount of Rs. 14,25,000/- to show the bona-fides of the petitioner without admitting the guilt. Mr. Gohil, Ld. APP for the State, under the instructions of Mr. J.A. Patel, PSI, stated that during the course of investigation it has transpired that the amount of sale deed is already paid by the petitioner to the principal in the presence of witnesses whose statements are recorded. Mr. Munshi, Ld. advocate appearing for the original complainant submitted that even if the petitioner is ready to deposit the amount of full consideration the original complainant is not agreeable for staying of the proceedings of investigation.

3. It, prima-facie, appears that if as per the investigation papers the consideration is paid by the petitioner to the principal and there are witnesses for such purpose, the case, as stated in the complaint, cannot be accepted on its face value. Further, as recorded herein above, on behalf of the petitioner the willingness is shown to deposit the entire amount of the sale consideration with this court. So far as other charges of forgery are concerned, as recorded herein above, there are no prima facie ingredients qua such offence. Hence, following order:

(i) Rule returnable on 28.9.2005.

(ii) Interim relief in terms of para 17(d) on condition that the petitioner deposits the full amount of sale consideration of Rs. 14,25,000/- with the trial court within a period of 10 days from today without prejudice to his rights and contentions in the petition and without admitting the guilt. The trial court shall invest the said amount with any nationalised bank in FD Receipts and such deposit of amount by the petitioner shall be subject to further orders which may be passed by this court at the time of final hearing of this petition."

3. The petitioners approached Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 to deposit the said amount. However, they denied to do so,