Hon'ble SHARMA, J.-Both. these revision petitions have been filed against the order dated 21.2.2009 passed by Special Judge, printing and Stationary Embezzlement Cases and Additional Special Judge, CBI Cases, Jaipur in Special Criminal case No. 35/08 (3/06) whereby charge has been framed against the accused petitioner Anand Sagar Mehta for the offence under Sections 120B read with section 420 B IPC and Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1) (d) of Prevention of Corruption Act and against the accused petitioners Suresh Meghraj Pujara and Chandra Meghraj Pujara for the offence under Sections 120B read with Section 420 IPC.

2. As both these revision petitions relate to framing of charge against the accused petitioners in Criminal Case 35/08 (3/06) pending before the Addl. Special Judge, CBI Cases, Jaipur, they are being disposed by this common order.

3. Brief facts 'giving rise to these revision petitions are that on 1.3.2004 the General Manager (Vigilance) and Chief Vigilance Officer, UCO Bank wrote a letter to the Superintendent of Police, SPE CBI Jaipur making complaint against Shri Anand Mohan Sagar Mehta, the then Chief Manager in respect of acts of omission and commission committed by him in advance portfolio at Johari Bazar, Jaipur Branch. On the basis of which on 8.3.2004 an FIR was lodged. The CBI completed the investigation and submitted a charge sheet in the matter. After registration of the criminal case, the Bank invoked the jurisdiction of the Debt Recovery Tribunal, Jaipur by filing application under Section 19 of the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993 against M/s. Meghsons Departmental Store and its partners etc. The said application was filed on 28.1.2005 and was registered vide No. 18/2005. The petitioners submitted that on perusal of the original application would go to show that there is no such allegation as levelled in the FIR. The CBI filed the charge sheet against the petitioners and others for various offences including sections 120 B read_ with Section 420 IPC and section 13(2) read with section 13(1)(d) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1980 in the alternate section 420 IPC read with section 13(2) read with section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1980. It has been averred in the petition that M/s. Meghsons Departmental Store, Jaipur was granted financial assistance by the Bank. On account of default in repayment of the loans, the Bank filed a suit for recovery, a complaint was made by the General Manager and the Chief Vigilance Officer of the Bank on the basis whereof investigations were undertaken by the CBI, which resulted in filing of the charge sheet against the accused petitioners. The allegations in the charge sheet reveal that the accused petitioners conspired with each other in fraudulently diverting the funds of the Bank. Offences relating to forgery were also included in the charge sheet. The suit between the firm and the Bank was settled on a compromise arrived at between the parties which was reduced in writing. The firm agreed to pay the amount compromised between the parties during the pendency of the suit. The firm deposited the agreed amount with the Bank and ultimately the OA No. 18/05 filed by the Bank was not pressed by the Bank before the Tribunal and the same was dismissed on 16.4.2009. The securitisation appeal filed by the firm came to be dismissed as withdrawn on 16.4.2009. Consequent upon the compromise arrived at between the partners of the firm, the petitioners submit that since the subject matter of the dispute had been settled between the firm and the Bank, it would be unreasonable to continue with the criminal proceedings which had been commenced on a complaint filed on behalf of the Bank. The Special Judge framed the charge against the petitioners on 21.2.2009 without any basis and evidence. The petitioners also filed a misc. petition for quashing of the entire proceedings on the basis of the order of DRT in which the e