This Court found that in view of a compromise arrived at between the Company and the Bank, it was a fit case where a technicality should not be allowed to stand in the way of quashing of the criminal proceedings. This Court found that in view of the settlement arrived at between the parties, continuance of the same would be an exercise in futility. 21. A similar view was again taken by 2 Judge Bench of this Court in the case of Manoj Sharma v. State and others9. 22. However, another 2 Judge Bench of this Court in the case of Gian Singh v. State of Punjab and another10 doubted the correctness of the view taken by this Court in the cases of B.S. Joshi (supra), Nikhil Merchant (supra), and Manoj Sharma (supra) and referred the matter to a larger Bench. 23. The reference was answered by the learned 3 Judge Bench 9 (2008) 16 SCC 1 10 (2010) 15 SCC 118 16of this Court in the case of Gian Singh (supra)11. Speaking for the Bench, R.M. Lodha, J. (as His Lordship then was), observed thus: “57.