( 1 ) CRIMINAL Petitions Nos. 1153 and 1154 of 2003 are filed to quash the proceedings in Crime No. 8/2003 of Police Station, C. I. D. , Hyderabad, and Crime No. 107/2003 of Police Station, C. C. S. , Hyderabad, respectively.

( 2 ) SINCE common questions of law and common facts are involved in both the petitions and since petitioners in both the petitions are same, they are disposed of by a common order.

( 3 ) THE Joint Registrar of Co-operative Societies and Chief Executive Officers, Vasavi Co-operative Urban Bank, Hyderabad, hereinafter to be referred to as vasavi Bank for the sake of brevity, lodged a report with the Additional Director General of Police, Criminal Investigation Department, Hyderabad, which was registered as Crime No. 8/2003 under Sections 120-B, 420, 409, 468, 477-A of the Indian Penal Code and Section 5 of the A. P. Protection of Depositors and Financial Establishments Act 1999 (for short act No. 17/1999), and Sri P. Anand, a depositor in the Vasavi Bank, lodged a report with the Deputy Commissioner of Police, Detective Department, Hyderabad, for 14 others also, which was registered as Crime No. 107/2003 under Sections 420 and 406, IPC and Sections 3 and 5 of Act 17 of 1999, inter alia alleging that the Directors of Vasavi Bank committed offences of criminal conspiracy and criminal breach of trust. Accused in those crimes filed the present petitions as aforesaid.

( 4 ) LEARNED senior counsel, Sri S. Ramachandra Rao, appearing on behalf of the petitioners argued at length with reference to Act 17 of 1999, the Banking Regulation Act, 1949 (hereinafter to be referred to as the banking Regulation Act ), and the Reserve Bank of India Act, 1934 (to be referred to as the reserve Bank of India Act ). Learned Public Prosecutor made elaborate submissions with reference to the above Acts besides the Companies Act, 1956. I shall specify their respective contentions at appropriate places.

( 5 ) THERE cannot be any dispute that a complaint can be quashed at the initial stage only if the allegations in the complaint do not make out a prima facie case. The scope of Section 482, Cr. P. C. is set out in State of Haryana v. Ch. Bhajan Lal, AIR 1992 SC 604 and reiterated in State of Karnataka v. M. Devendrappa, (2002) 1 Supreme 192, wherein some illustrative categories in which the power under Section 482, Cr. P. C. can be exercised are mentioned as below : (1) "where the allegations made in the first information report or the complaint, even if they are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety do not prima facie constitute any offence or make out a case against the accused. (2) Where the allegations in the F. I. R. and other materials, if any, accompanying the F. I. R. do not disclose a cognizable offence, justifying an investigation by police officers under Section 156 (1) of the Code of except under an order of Magistrate within the purview of Section 155 (2) of the Code. (3) Where the uncontroverted allegations made in the F. I. R. or complaint and the evidence collected in support of the same do not disclose the commission of any offence and make out a case against the accused. (4) Where the allegations in the F. I. R. do not constitute a cognizable offence but constitute only a non-cognizable offence, no investigation is permitted by a police officer without an order of a Magistrate as contemplated under Section 155 (2) of the Code. (5) Where the allegations made in the F. I. R. or complaint are so absurd and inherently improbable on the basis of which no prudent person can ever reach a just conclusion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused. (6) Where there is an express legal bar engrafted in any of the provisions of the Code of the concerned Act (under which a criminal proceeding is instituted) to the institution and continuance of the proceeding and/or where there is a specific provision in the Code or the concerned Act, providing efficacious redress fo