ORDER : Y.K. Sabharwal, J. Leave granted. 2. The appellant is aggrieved by the judgment dated 9-6-2003 of the Bombay High Court, whereby Criminal Writ Petition No. 968 of 1994 was dismissed. The petition seeking review of the order dated 9-6-2003 was also dismissed by the High Court in terms of the order dated 16-7-2003. 3. The appellant and Respondents 3 and 4 herein are accused in a complaint filed by Respondent 2 against them. The accused are officers in M/s Usha International Ltd. A complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 was filed by the Company against Respondent 2 herein. Respondent 2 has filed complaint against the accused, inter alia, alleging that they have committed offences under Sections 458 and 471 read with Section 34 of the Penal Code, 1860. The criminal writ petition filed in the High Court seeks quashing of the complaint that has been filed by Respondent 2 against the appellant and Respondents 3 and 4. When the said writ petition came up before the High Court on 9-6-2003, on a counsel representing that the papers had been taken back by the client, an order was passed by the High Court opining that the writ jurisdiction cannot be exercised for quashing the FIR. Thereafter, another counsel appeared and mentioned the matter and by another short order the Court held that the writ jurisdiction need not be exercised for the reason that even if charge-sheet is filed, remedies are open for seeking discharge from the appropriate court. The Court did not go into the merits of the case on the ground that the observation may affect either of the parties. 4. The petition was pending for about nine years in the High Court. The proceedings arising out of the complaint made by Respondent 2 had been stayed. In law, the High Court is not correct in opining that the writ jurisdiction cannot be exercised for quashing the FIR though the quashing of FIR is to be resorted to rarely as pointed out by this Court in State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335. After lapse of nine years, having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, we feel that it would not be fair not to examine the grievance of the writ petitioners on the ground that they can seek discharge if the charge-sheet is filed. After lapse of nine years, having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, we feel that it would not be fair not to examine the grievance of the writ petitioners on the ground that they can seek discharge if the charge-sheet is filed. According to the writ petitioners before the High Court, the complaint was a counterblast as a result of the Company filing against the complainant, a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. This, of course, is refuted by the complainant. We express no opinion one way or the other on the respective pleas and contentions of the parties. In our opinion, having regard to the aforesaid facts the criminal writ petition deserves to be decided afresh on its own merits in accordance with law after noticing the rival contentions and hearing counsel for the parties. In this view, we set aside the orders dated 9-6-2003 and 16-7-2003 and remit Criminal Writ Petition No. 968 of 1994 for its fresh decision by the High Court with a request to the High Court to decide it expeditiously as it is pending for about a decade. The stay that was operating when the petition was pending before the High Court prior to order dated 9-6-2003 will continue till decision of the writ petition. 5. The appeal is allowed in the above terms. Appeal allowed.