JUDGMENT Satish Kumar Mittal, J. - The petitioners have filed this petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for setting aside the order dated 28.9.1998 passed by the Presiding Officer, Special Environment Court, Hissar vide which application filed by the prosecution under Section 321 of the Code of Criminal Procedure has been dismissed, and for quashing complaint filed by the respondent i.e. Annexure P-1 to this petition and subsequent proceedings taken thereon. 2. In the year 1987, the respondent i.e. Haryana State Board for the Prevention and Control of Water Pollution (hereinafter referred to as the Board) instituted the complaint in question through its Junior Environmental Engineer under Section 49(1)(a) alleging commission of offence by the petitioners punishable under Sections 43 and 44 of the Water (Prevention & Control of Pollution) Act, 1974 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). The petitioners were carrying on the business of glue manufacturing in their factory at Sonepat. The allegations against them are that during the course of manufacturing of the aforesaid product they were discharging untreated trade effluent beyond the tolerance limit specified by the Board, in the agricultural land and thus, were polluting the sub soil water. 3. Initially, petitioners were summoned in the aforesaid complaint to face trial in the Court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sonepat, but subsequently with the constitution of Special Environment Courts in the State of Haryana, the complaint in question was transferred to the Special Environment Court at Hisar in the year 1988. After recording the pre-charge evidence, charges were framed against the petitioners for commission of offence under Section 49(1)(a) of the Act, as referred to above. During the pendency of the complaint, the petitioners closed their factory. 4. In the year 1988, the respondent-Board took a policy decision for withdrawal of such complaints instituted against petty offences by charging compounding fee as well as litigation expenses from the accused. In pursuance to that policy decision, the respondent-Board made an application before the Special Environment Court for withdrawal from the prosecution against the present petitioners on 20.8.1998. The said application was filed by the Assistant Environmental Engineer, Sonepat on the basis of the letter issued by the Board, wherein it was mentioned that the unit of the petitioners is lying closed and has been de-registered. The petitioners firm has also paid an amount of Rs. 10,000/- as litigation expenses to the Board. The said application was filed by the Assistant Environmental Engineer, Sonepat on the basis of the letter issued by the Board, wherein it was mentioned that the unit of the petitioners is lying closed and has been de-registered. The petitioners firm has also paid an amount of Rs. 10,000/- as litigation expenses to the Board. In view of these facts, it was recommended that the prosecution against the petitioners should be withdrawn. 5. The application filed by the respondent-Board was dismissed by the Special Environment Court at Faridabad vide order dated 28.9.1998 while observing that the request of the Board for withdrawal from prosecution is not in the interest of administration of justice. It has been further observed that the Board has recommended withdrawal from prosecution in many cases as a matter of policy, but such recommendation or withdrawal from the prosecution is causing hindrance in the administration of justice and the same is not admissible in law as laid down by the Honble Supreme Court of India in M.S. M.N. Shankaranarayanan Nair v. P.V. Balakrishanan and others, AIR 1972 Supreme Court 496. Hence this petition. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that unit of the petitioners was discharging the water effluent after treating it. The allegation against them is that their unit was discharging the effluent beyond the tolerance limit. As per allegation itself, the violation was on marginal difference of discharge of effluent. He further submitted that subsequently, the petitioners closed down their factory. Therefore, they were no longer committing any violation of the provisions of the Act. They had also given an undertaking to the Board that they will not start their factory. Learned counsel for the petitioners further submitted that the complaint against the petitioners was filed in the year 1987 and as such, the petitioners are facting the agony of protracted trial for the last about 17 years and during all this period have been suffering immense pain and mental agony. He further submitted that as per its policy decision, the Board has withdrawn the prosecution in several cases where there were minor violations, after charging the litigation expenses. The petitioners had also paid an amount of Rs. He further submitted that as per its policy decision, the Board has withdrawn the prosecution in several cases where there were minor violations, after charging the litigation expenses. The petitioners had also paid an amount of Rs. 10,000/- as litigation expenses to the Board as mentioned in Annexure P-5 and pursuant thereto the Board had also recommended withdrawal from prosecution against them, but the Special Environment Court at Hissar arbitrarily dismissed the application filed by the Board on the ground that withdrawal from prosecution was not in the interest of administration of justice. Learned counsel for the petitioners referred to the decision of this Court in 1999(3) RCR(Crl.) 265 (P&H) : Criminal Revision No. 1147 of 1998 titled Haryana State Board for the Prevention and Control of Water Pollution, Chandigarh v. M/s. Sanjivan Research Laboratories (Regd.) and others, decided on 15.1.1999, where in an identical case the order passed by the Special Environment Court not permitting the Board from withdrawing prosecution on the ground "not in the interest of administration of justice", has been set aside while observing that no mala fide is discernible on the part of the Board when it wanted to withdraw the prosecution. The Board might have compounded the offence, perhaps with an understanding on behalf of the units that they will take necessary steps for protecting the environment of industry. If the Board is satisfied that the necessary steps have been taken and after imposing fine, etc., it has reached to a compromise, the law Courts rather should try to protect the interests of both the units as well as the Board itself. 7. In response to the notice of motion having been issued on 9.10.1998, no reply has been filed by the Board to this petition. Even during the course of arguments, the learned counsel for the respondent-Board could not controvert the factual position in this case. He could not dispute that the unit was closed long back and the petitioners had deposited an amount of Rs. 10,000/-. 8. After hearing the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and perusing the record of the case, I am of the opinion that continuation of the complaint in question against the petitioners is not in the interest of justice and the same is liable to be quashed. 9. 10,000/-. 8. After hearing the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and perusing the record of the case, I am of the opinion that continuation of the complaint in question against the petitioners is not in the interest of justice and the same is liable to be quashed. 9. Undisputedly the complaint in question was instituted against the petitioners in the year 1987 for violation of the Act on account of discharging water effluent beyond tolerance limit. For the last about 17 years the petitioners are facing the agony of protracted trial. It is also not disputed that the unit of the petitioners was closed long back and thereafter there is no discharge of any effluent water on the agricultural land. It is further not disputed that under a policy decision the Board had recommended for withdrawal from the prosecution against the petitioners and an amount of Rs. 10,000/- was got deposited from the petitioners. The application filed by the respondent-Board for withdrawal from the prosecution was not allowed by the Special Environment court on the ground that such withdrawal from prosecution will not be in the interest of administration of justice. 10. I am of the opinion that the Special Environment Court has completely ignored the fact that in the instant case, the manufacturing unit of the petitioners was closed and under a policy decision a recommendation was made by the respondent-Board itself for withdrawal from prosecution against the petitioners after charging the compounding/litigation expenses to the tune of Rs. 10,000/- from them. In such a situation particularly in view of the facts that the petitioners have been facing the agony of protracted trial for the last about 17 years and the violation of the Act now ceases to be in existence, it cannot be said that withdrawal from the prosecution from the petitioners was not in the interest of administration of justice. The Board has taken the policy decision after considering various factors. Such decision of withdrawal from prosecution could only be rejected if the same had been taken with oblique motive and mala fide object. There is no such allegation in the instant case. 11. Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the view that rejection of prayer of the respondent-Board for withdrawal from prosecution was not justified. There is no such allegation in the instant case. 11. Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the view that rejection of prayer of the respondent-Board for withdrawal from prosecution was not justified. Thus, continuation of prosecution of the petitioners on the basis of the aforesaid complaint will not serve the ends of justice. 12. Consequently, the instant petition is allowed and complaint-Annexure P/1 instituted by the Board and consequential proceedings thereon are quashed. Petition allowed.