JUDGMENT ( Per : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE AKIL KURESHI ) This case is an example of a cleaver litigant misusing the legal machinery to his advantage to thwart legal process for a long time. In this petition filed in the public interest, during the pendency of the petition, certain developments took place which substantially redressed the grievances of the petitioner. However, during the course of hearing, we noticed certain disturbing aspects of the matter, particularly, the conduct of the respondents Nos.9 and 10 herein. We, therefore, propose to pass detail order to curb misuse of legal mechanism in future. 2. Facts involved in this petition are as follows: 2.1 Petitioner is an association of Gujarat Co-operative Bank and Credit Society shareholders and depositors. It is duly registered as public trust. Through this petition, petitioner sought to bring to the notice of the Court large scam of alleged fraudulent siphoning away of the funds of co-operative banks principally by the respondent No.9. Reliefs claimed include besides others for transfer of investigation of an FIR bearing C.R.No.I-6 of 2002 registered with Anand Town Police Station in which allegations against several persons have been made of defrauding one Charotar Nagrik Co-operative Bank which is under liquidation. Petitioner prayed that such investigation be transferred to CBI or in the alternative to CID (Crime), Gandhinagar. Petitioner has also prayed for direction to the Liquidator of the Charotar Nagrik Cooperative Bank to take immediate steps to attach properties and other assets of the respondent No.9 and his agencies, enterprises and sister concerns to secure the debt of the said bank. 2.2 It is the case of the petitioner that the respondent No.9 who is Managing Director and Chairman of nearly 15 Bhavaya group of companies and firms which are engaged in the construction and development of land business in and around Ahmedabad has taken loans of large amount from the said Charotar Nagrik Cooperative Bank and other co-operative banks. Such loans have not been repaid and the respondent No.9 and his other firms, concerns and agencies are in default worth crores of rupees. 2.3 On 05.01.2002, an FIR bearing C.R.No.I-6 of 2002 came to be filed before the Anand Town Police Station by the General Manager of Charotar Nagrik Co-operative Bank alleging inter alia that in releasing the loans in favour of different borrowers, several persons including the Directors of the bank had committed large scale frauds. 2.3 On 05.01.2002, an FIR bearing C.R.No.I-6 of 2002 came to be filed before the Anand Town Police Station by the General Manager of Charotar Nagrik Co-operative Bank alleging inter alia that in releasing the loans in favour of different borrowers, several persons including the Directors of the bank had committed large scale frauds. Through doubtful loans, huge amounts were released in favour of deferent borrowers without proper security and so on. 2.4 It is the case of the petitioner that though respondent No.9 was also involved in the said bank scam, he being influential person well connected politically, no steps were taken against him. Proper investigation was not carried out to investigate into his dealings with the bank. In the mean time, outstanding dues of the respondent No.9 towards the bank kept mounting. Upon completion of the investigation, chargesheet was filed with respect to the said FIR bearing C.R.No.I-6 of 2002, however, the respondent No.9 and the respondent No.10 who was also involved in Bhavya Group of Companies, were not arraigned as accused. 2.5 In response to the notice issued, respondent No.8 official liquidator of the Charotar Nagrik Co-operative Bank filed affidavit dated 15.06.2005. In the said affidavit, it is stated inter alia that; “It is true that the Bank has to recover over Rs.60 crores as on date from the agencies and enterprises of respondent No.9 and concerns to whom he has direct or indirect connections. It is true that after the bank went into liquidation, the agencies and enterprises of respondent No.9have not repaid any amount at all. As on date properties worth Rs.23 crores (approximately) have been mortgaged to the bank by the agencies and enterprises of respondent No.9. However, there are properties which have been sold to third parties by the agencies and enterprises of respondent No.9 which have been in fact mortgaged to the bank prior in point of time." It is further stated that the agencies and enterprises of the respondent No.9 have not repaid any amount after liquidation. It is further stated that as on date the outstanding to be recovered by the bank from the Bhavya Group of Companies comes to more than Rs.60 crores. Involvement of the respondent No.9 was admitted in the following manner: It is pertinent to mention at this juncture that in all the 19 accounts financial assistance have not been availed of by Mr.Praan Fultaria. Involvement of the respondent No.9 was admitted in the following manner: It is pertinent to mention at this juncture that in all the 19 accounts financial assistance have not been availed of by Mr.Praan Fultaria. But it can certainly be stated from the record available with the bank that he is directly or indirectly responsible for such financial assistance. His involvement is in different capacities such as a Director, a Partner or a Guarantor. It is further stated that Lavad Suits have been filed, decrees have been drawn up by the competent courts against the respondents Nos.9 and 10 and that they had no genuine intention to repay the outstanding amounts of the bank. It is further stated : "16. I say that respondent No.9" Mr. Praan Fultaria has given proposal for one time settlement with respect to all 19 accounts referred to in the petition. The bank has also carried out detailed survey about the status of each property referred therein. The outcome of the survey is shocking. It also establishes beyond the reasonable doubt that respondent No.9 and his group of companies is a classic example of who can be called a "willful defaulter". Xerox copy of the status report based on the survey conducted by the bank as regards the properties shown in the proposal for one time settlement by respondent No.9 - Mr. Praan Fultaria is annexed hereto and marked Annexure-R2. 17. I say that there are several glaring instances of misdeeds, fraud, cheating and criminal breach of trust committed by the respondent No.9 and individuals involved in taking financial assistance from the bank through 19 accounts referred to in the petition. A list of such glaring instances is annexed hereto and marked as Annexure-R3. In the Annexures-R2 and R3 referred to the in the above-mentioned affidavit, details have been given with respect to the several properties showing irregularities and fraud allegedly committed. Along with affidavit, details have been given of several properties which were hypothecated with the bank but whose titles are doubtful. 2.6 Affidavits have been filed by the respondents Nos.9 and 10 denying the allegations contending that they have not committed any irregularities. 2.7 It is not in dispute that during the pendency of the petition, investigation was transferred by the State to the CID (Crime). Several additional chargesheets were filed. 2.6 Affidavits have been filed by the respondents Nos.9 and 10 denying the allegations contending that they have not committed any irregularities. 2.7 It is not in dispute that during the pendency of the petition, investigation was transferred by the State to the CID (Crime). Several additional chargesheets were filed. Finally in the chargesheet dated 16.09.2006 respondent No.9 was arraigned as an accused. Against the respondent No.10 also, chargesheet was filed. However, both are shown to be absconding. With respect to the respondent No.9, in particular, in the said chargesheet it is stated that huge amount of loans worth crores of rupees were taken by the Bhavya Group of companies. As on 23.01.2006, the outstanding dues came to Rs.68,66,05,023/-. Such loans were obtained in connivance with the Chairman, Managing Director and other Directors of the bank by misusing powers and position on the basis of the mortgages without verifying the correct status of the properties and on the basis of false documents etc. Accused, therefore, are alleged to have committed offences punishable under Section 406, 409, 420, 465, 466, 467, 468, 474 read with Section 120-B of Indian Penal Code and Section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. 3. Counsel for the petitioner stated that in view of the investigation having been transferred to CID (Crime) by the State and in view of subsequent chargesheets filed against the respondents Nos.9 and 10, the purpose of this public interest litigation has substantially been served. He, therefore, submitted that by making suitable observations and giving directions for early conclusion of the criminal trial, the petition can be finally disposed of. 4. There are certain connected proceedings which came to our light during the course of hearing of this petition, we, therefore, wish to take note of such proceedings before closing the matter. 4.1 Respondents Nos.9 and 10 herein were not readily available for arrest at the time of presentation of the chargesheet against them. Police, therefore, approached the learned Magistrate for issuance of warrant under Section 70 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (for short ?Cr.P.C.?) . Such warrants were issued by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ahmedabad on 16.12.2005. Since they could not be still arrested, proclamation under Section 82 of the Cr.P.C. was prayed for. These respondents opposed such proclamation by filing their Objection Petition on 31.03.2006. Such warrants were issued by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ahmedabad on 16.12.2005. Since they could not be still arrested, proclamation under Section 82 of the Cr.P.C. was prayed for. These respondents opposed such proclamation by filing their Objection Petition on 31.03.2006. They prayed that on account of death of father-in-law of the respondent No.10 herein, they could not remain present. Some more time may be granted for appearance before the Court. This prayer was turned down. Thereupon, the respondents filed Criminal Revision Application No.732 of 2006 (converted from Special Criminal Application No.651 of 2006) before this Court and challenged the orders passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate of issuance of warrant under Section 70 of Cr.P.C. and proclamation under Section 82 of the Cr.P.C. By order dated 10.04.2007, learned Single Judge of this Court stayed the earlier order of the learned CJM, Ahmedabad dated 16.12.2005 and further granted interim relief in terms of Para 5(D)(i) and thereby stayed all the impugned orders. 4.2 This petition remained pending before the High Court upto 26.04.2010 and interim relief continued to operate. Respondents Nos.9 and 10 thus continued to keep the Investigating Agency at bay and though before the learned Magistrate, they had prayed only for breathing time to appear before the Court, under the interim relief of the High Court did not appear at all. By virtue of the said orders, they could not be arrested. 4.3 On 26.04.2010, they sought permission to withdraw the said Criminal Revision Application as they have moved substantive petition under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C.. Accordingly, Criminal Revision Application No.732 of 2006 was permitted to be withdrawn and interim relief was vacated. Order dated 26.04.2010 reads as under : Shri Pandya, learned advocate appearing for the applicants seeks permission to withdraw this Criminal Revision Application as he has moved substantive petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Shri Kodekar, learned APP has no objection if such permission is granted. Shri Dharmesh Shah, learned advocate for original complainant, who has been permitted to assist the Court by earlier order dated 16.12.2009 by this Court (Coram: Akil Kureshi, J.), also has no objection if such request is granted. In view of such request, the present Criminal Revision Application is permitted to be withdrawn. Interim relief, if any stands vacated as the matter is disposed of as withdrawn. In view of such request, the present Criminal Revision Application is permitted to be withdrawn. Interim relief, if any stands vacated as the matter is disposed of as withdrawn. 4.4 After trying their hands at challenging the warrant under Section 70 of the Cr.P.C. and proclamation under Section 82 of Cr.P.C. passed by the learned Magistrate before the High Court, respondents Nos.9 and 10 herein preferred quashing petition being Special Criminal Application No.761 of 2010 and on this basis withdrew Criminal Revision Application No.732 of 2006. 4.5 Special Criminal Application No.761 of 2010 was first placed before the regular bench taking up such matters on 28.04.2010. On that day, learned Judge, however, passed the order not before this Court. Thereafter, said petition was placed before another Court On 04.05.2010. It was conveyed to the Court that the petitioners are trying to work out a proposal for repayment of the outstanding acceptable to the bank and on that basis time was sought. Learned Judge passed the following order on 04.05.2010. Shri R.S. Sanjanwala, learned advocate appearing for the applicants seeks time as the applicants are trying to workout a proposal for repayment of the outstanding acceptable to the Bank. As there is no interim order operating, this Court is inclined to accept the request. At the request of Shri R.S. Sanjanwala, the matter is kept on 10th May,2010. 4.6 Once again on 10.05.2010 on the same ground on behalf of the petitioners therein, i.e. present respondents No.9 and 10, request was made to adjourn the matter beyond vacation. Learned Single Judge passed the following order: “Shri Yatin Oza, learned senior advocate appearing with learned advocate Shri R.S. Sanjanwala for the applicant, with consent of Shri Dharmesh Shah, learned advocate, who has received the advance copy on behalf of the respondent-Bank(original complainant) seeks adjournment of this matter beyond vacation as the re-payment of outstanding dues is being worked out. This Court on 4.5.2010, while accepting the request of adjournment noted that as there was no interim order operating, the request for adjournment was accepted. Today, in view of the fact that no interim order is in operation in this matter, the request for adjournment beyond vacation is accepted. S.O to 15.6.2010. This Court on 4.5.2010, while accepting the request of adjournment noted that as there was no interim order operating, the request for adjournment was accepted. Today, in view of the fact that no interim order is in operation in this matter, the request for adjournment beyond vacation is accepted. S.O to 15.6.2010. 4.7 On one hand, said quashing petition was at the request of the Counsel for the petitioners (respondents Nos.9 and 10 herein) was being adjourned, in the mean time, said respondents Nos. 9 and 10 moved an application being Civil Application No.5619 of 2010 in the present public interest litigation being Special Civil Application No.9201 of 2005. This application was moved before the learned Single Judge during the vacation. Ordinarily the proceedings being connected with public interest litigation, the same would have been placed before the Division Bench. However, since the application was moved during vacation, the same was taken up by the learned Single Judge in charge of vacation duty. In this application, respondents Nos.9 and 10 herein reiterated their stand that they wished to make payment of outstanding dues as per the new scheme for One Time Settlement (for short 'OTS') formulated by the Government under resolution dated 19.05.2010. They stated that they were willing to pay the amount as per such scheme. They, therefore, in the Civil Application prayed as follows: 13. The petitioner, therefore, prays : (a) That pending hearing and final disposal of Special Civil Application No.9201 of 2005, the following directions may be issued: I. That the High Level Committee of the State Government may bedirected to forthwith consider and grant One Time Settlement as per the State Government policy dated 19.05.2010 to the applicants and the various accounts (19) of the applicants treating the said accounts as group accounts; II. The State Government and the Liquidator of Charotar Bank may be directed to dispose of the mortgaged properties as per the list Annexure-G, jointly with the applicants, and to deposit the sale consideration in a No Lien Account to be appropriated against the settlement amount once the High Level Committee decides the OTS proposal. III. The State Government and the Liquidator of Charotar Bank may be directed to dispose of the mortgaged properties as per the list Annexure-G, jointly with the applicants, and to deposit the sale consideration in a No Lien Account to be appropriated against the settlement amount once the High Level Committee decides the OTS proposal. III. That all further proceedings in connection with FIR bearing C.R.No.I-6 of 2002 and the chargesheet dated 16.09.2006 and 11.10.2006 against the present applicants may be stayed; (b) Your Lordship may be pleased to grant such other and further relief as the Hon'ble Court may deem fit in the facts and circumstances of the case. 4.8 On 27.05.2010, on the said Civil Application, the learned Single Judge, during the vacation, passed the detailed order. Prayer for stay of the further proceedings with respect to the complaint bearing C.R.No.I-6 of 2002 and the chargesheet dated 16.09.2006 and 11.10.2006 was stoutly opposed by the Counsel for the petitioner, which was recorded by the learned Single Judge as follows : 8. Coming to the relief prayed in clause III i.e. stay of further proceedings in connection with FIR bearing C.R. No. 6 of 2002 and the charge-sheet dated 16.09.2006 & 11.10.2006 against the present applicants is concerned, the learned Advocate Mr. T.S.Nanavati vehemently opposed the same. He submitted that the present applicants had filed Special Criminal Application No. 761 of 2010 for quashing of the charge-sheets to the extent the same concern the applicants. He submitted that this Civil Application is nothing but an attempt to obtain the relief which they are not able to obtain in quashing petition before this Court.” This opposition was, however, brushed aside by the learned Judge, in the following manner : “8.1. Prima facie, the submission of Mr. T.S.Nanavati appears to be acceptable. But, the same is not accepted by the Court for the reasons that the FIR is of the year 2002, the charge-sheets are filed in the year 2006 and we are in the year 2010 and still by nomeans/machinery any amount could be recovered from the applicants. Prima facie, the submission of Mr. T.S.Nanavati appears to be acceptable. But, the same is not accepted by the Court for the reasons that the FIR is of the year 2002, the charge-sheets are filed in the year 2006 and we are in the year 2010 and still by nomeans/machinery any amount could be recovered from the applicants. Now, when the applicants have come forward and have shown their bonafide by paying 1.5 crore and two post dated cheques, each of Rs.1.75 crore, of dated 02.06.2010 and 09.06.2010, this Court deems it fit to grant conditional stay of the further proceedings in connection with FIR bearing C.R. No. 6 of 2002 and the charge-sheets dated 16.09.2006 & 11.10.2006. The proceedings in connection with FIR bearing C.R. No. 6 of 2002 and the charge-sheets dated 16.09.2006 & 11.10.2006 are stayed on condition that if any of the cheques dated 02.06.2010 or 09.06.2010 get dishonoured, this relief will stand vacated automatically without reference to the Court. It is clarified that in the event any property mentioned in Annexure-G list is found to be non-marketable on account of seals applied by any other creditors than the Liquidator of Charotar Nagarik Sahakari Bank Ltd., the relief of stay of proceedings in connection with FIR bearing C.R. No. 6 of 2002 and the charge-sheets dated 16.09.2006 & 11.10.2006, will stand vacated automatically.” Ultimately, the learned Judge stayed further proceedings arising out of C.R.No.I6 of 2002. 4.9 Subsequent to the said order dated 27.05.2010, two more Civil Applications came to be filed in the pending petition. Civil Application No.10136 of 2010 has been filed by one Amrutbhai Vithalbhai Patel. His case is that one of the properties which is being sold under the order dated 27.05.2010 for realizing the dues of the respondents Nos.9 and 10 is of his ownership. This applicant, therefore, in his Civil Application No.10136 of 2010 prayed for clarification that his property bearing Flat No.11 on First Floor, Block No.F of J.B.Park apartments is not under sale. 4.10 We may notice that Counsel for the liquidator of the bank stated upon verification that said property has been released from the auction sale. This Civil Application has, therefore, lost its importance. 4.10 We may notice that Counsel for the liquidator of the bank stated upon verification that said property has been released from the auction sale. This Civil Application has, therefore, lost its importance. 4.11 Civil Application No.10542 of 2010 has been filed by the Madhavpura Mercantile Co-operative Bank Ltd. making serious grievance about the interim order dated 27.05.2010 passed by the learned Single Judge and the manner in which the said order was obtained. In the application, it has been stated that the application of the respondents Nos.9 and 10 being Civil Application No.5619 of 2010 was taken up in vacation even without serving a copy thereof to the counsel for the Madhavpura Mercantile Co-operative Bank. They, therefore, were not aware about the contents of such application. Some of the properties indicated by the respondents Nos.9 and 10 as security were also mortgaged to the Madhavpura Mercantile Co-operative Bank. It is, therefore, prayed that interim order dated 27.05.2010 be vacated. 4.12 We may notice that while hearing this application being Civil Application No.10542 of 2010, cognizance was taken by us on 16.09.2006 of the interim order dated 27.05.2010 and ordered to place all the proceedings before us along with the application on the next date of hearing. When on 23.09.2010 all the proceedings were being heard by us, surprisingly, the Counsel for the applicant - Madhavpura Mercantile Co-operative Bank stated that he has instructions to withdraw Civil Application. We were most unhappy about such stand. In the public interest litigation, withdrawal of the proceedings cannot for asking and certainly not at the sweet-will of the applicant / petitioner. We, therefore, summarily refused to entertain any such request. 4.13 To complete narration of events, we may record that after order dated 27.05.2010 in Civil Application No.5619 of 2010 staying further proceedings arising out of criminal cromplaint being C.R.No. 16 of 2002, respondents Nos. 9 and 10 withdrew their quashing petition being Special Criminal Application No.761 of 2010 on 15.06.2010 in following terms : In view of the order dated 27/5/2010 passed in Civil Application No. 5619 of 2010 in Special Civil Application No. 9201 of 2005 and subsequent order dated 11/6/2010, this matter is sought to be withdrawn by the petitioner with a liberty to file fresh petition for the same cause of action with the same prayer, when the Court has not even issued notice. Copy of order dated 27/5/2010 and dated 11/6/2010 passed in Civil Application No. 5619 of 2010 are taken on record. Learned APP Shri Kodekar appears for the State on advance copy. He submitted that he may have no objection if such liberty is reserved. Suffice it to note at this stage that in this matter there is no interim order operating. In view of this, liberty as sought for is granted. Matter is dismissed as withdrawn. No costs. 5. As already noted, public interest litigation has served its purpose. Counsel for the petitioner has also agreed to this proposition. Petitioner's grievance was that charges against the respondents Nos.9 and 10 were not properly investigated. Investigation was, during the pendency of the petition, transferred to the CID (Crime) and supplementary chargesheets were also filed including the respondents Nos.9 and 10 as additional accused. 6. Before closing this public interest litigation, we would like to record our displeasure to the manner in which the respondents Nos.9 and 10 have misused the legal machinery. From the above chain of events, it clearly emerges that since 2006 they have thwarted the legal process against them by one proceeding after another. 7. As recorded earlier, they had previously preferred Criminal Revision Application No.651 of 2006 challenging the orders passed by the learned Magistrate issuing warrants and proclamation under the Code of Criminal Procedure. Though, previously they had only sought breathing time before the learned Magistrate for their appearance before the Court, instead of appearing they challenged the orders before the High Court and obtained interim protection in the year 2007. After three years, they withdrew the revision application stating that they have filed substantive quashing petition. Thus, their challenge in the revision application was not pressed. Legality of the orders passed by the Magistrate under Section 70 and 82 of the Criminal Procedure Code were never finally examined by the High Court. After obtaining stay and after about three years, Criminal Revision Application was withdrawn to pursue the quashing petition. 8. In the quashing petition, no order was pressed for. On two occasions, prayer for adjournment was sought on the ground that they intend to make repayment of the dues to the bank. On second occasion, quashing petition was adjourned beyond vacation at their request. 9. Only few days into the vacation, however, the respondents Nos. 8. In the quashing petition, no order was pressed for. On two occasions, prayer for adjournment was sought on the ground that they intend to make repayment of the dues to the bank. On second occasion, quashing petition was adjourned beyond vacation at their request. 9. Only few days into the vacation, however, the respondents Nos. 9 and 10 approached the learned Single Judge in charge of vacation duty by filing Civil Application in public interest litigation. On the ground that they intend to avail benefit of new policy of the One Time Settlement formulated by the Government, they prayed for stay of the criminal proceedings. Such request was entertained despite strong objection raised on behalf of the petitioner. On 27.05.2010, learned Vacation Judge granted stay of further proceedings arising out of C.R.No.I-6 of 2002 though chargesheet against these respondents No.9 and 10 were filed in the year 2006. 10. We are clearly of the view that such protection could not and should not have been granted. First and foremost, it is public interest litigation seeking proper and effective investigation against the respondents Nos.9 and 10. During the pendency of the public interest litigation, chargesheets came to be filed against these respondents. In a petition filed by some other person seeking better and proper investigation against the respondents Nos.9 and 10, their prayer for staying the criminal proceedings could never have been entertained. 10.1 Secondly, these respondents Nos.9 and 10 had filed substantive quashing petition. Such quashing petition was not being pressed and at their request, was adjourned for more than once. When they did not get or obtain any order in the quashing petition, we fail to understand as to how they could seek stay of criminal proceedings, in civil application filed by them in public interest litigation filed against them. 10.2 Thirdly, even otherwise, we are firmly of the opinion that there was no case made out for staying the criminal proceedings. OTS of which these respondents seek to take advantage also clearly provides that such OTS would not affect any criminal proceedings arising of fraud etc. OTS also provides that no conditional offer shall be entertained. Respondents Nos.9 and 10 under the guise that they want to avail of benefit of OTS scheme could not have prayed for quashing or staying the criminal proceedings. OTS also provides that no conditional offer shall be entertained. Respondents Nos.9 and 10 under the guise that they want to avail of benefit of OTS scheme could not have prayed for quashing or staying the criminal proceedings. If it was their pre-condition, their offer itself would be conditional and liable to be rejected on this ground. Therefore, the OTS proposal is not even acceptable. In the case of Smt. Rumi Dhar v. State of West Bengal and another, reported at JT 2009 (5) SC 321, the Apex Court has observed as under : 18. It is now a well settled principle of law that in a given case, a civil proceeding and a criminal proceeding can proceedsimultaneously. Bank is entitled to recover the amount of loan given to the debtor. If in connection with obtaining the said loan, criminal offences have been committed by the persons accused thereof including the officers of the bank, criminal proceedings would also indisputably be maintainable. When a settlement is arrived at by and between the creditor and the debtor, the offence committed as such does not come to an end. The judgment of a Tribunal in a civil proceeding and that too when it is rendered on the basis of settlement entered into by and between the parties, would not be of much relevance in a criminal proceeding having regard to the provisions contained in Section 43 of the Indian Evidence Act. 11. We are deeply anguished and highly perturbed by the manner in which the said respondents Nos.9 and 10 obtained interim order dated 27.05.2010 in said Civil Application. Public interest litigation was for better and further investigation against them. Their independent quashing petition was filed and was pending. Thus, the respondents convinced the learned Single Judge to stay the criminal proceedings on the ground that they intended to avail of benefit of OTS and offered some money to the bank. Such offer of OTS is not even accepted so far. Even if accepted, would not terminate criminal proceedings. As already noticed, these respondents Nos.9 and 10 have been shifting remedies from one forum to another and preventing legal process to take its own course. We strongly deprecate such practice. 12. We do not propose to close the doors of these respondents in OTS, if any such remedy is available to them. As already noticed, these respondents Nos.9 and 10 have been shifting remedies from one forum to another and preventing legal process to take its own course. We strongly deprecate such practice. 12. We do not propose to close the doors of these respondents in OTS, if any such remedy is available to them. Such proposal shall be examined by the authority on its merits. It is, however, clarified that if any amount is received by the Bank through sale of the properties of the respondents Nos.9 or 10 or any of the Bhavya Group of Companies in terms of the order dated 27.05.2010, such amount shall be adjusted towards the dues of the bank. We have not the slightest intention even inadvertently to harm these respondents in their defence in criminal trial which is a fundamental right of the accused. However, we can not lose sight of the fact that the said respondents facing serious criminal charges have managed to keep such proceedings at bay for about four years after filing of the chargesheets. They have not appeared before the Court or even before the police authority all the while. Under the circumstances, while disposing of the petition directing the concerned trial Jude to conclude the trial arising of C.R.No.I-6 of 2002 expeditiously, we further direct the respondents Nos.9 and 10 to remain present before the concerned police authority, failing which, such police authority shall take steps to arrest them in connection with chargesheets dated 16.09.2006 and 11.10.2006. For their conduct, the respondents Nos.9 and 10 shall pay cost of Rs.25,000/-each. This being the public interest litigation, the cost shall not be paid over to the petitioner but the same shall be deposited with the Gujarat State Legal Service Authority within two weeks from today. 13. With the aforesaid directions, the petition as well as civil applications stand disposed of.