R. M. S. KHANDEPARKAR, J.

( 1 ) HEARD. Rule. By consent, the rule is made returnable forthwith.

( 2 ) THE petitioner seeks to quash the complaint dated 6-11-2004 stated to have been filed by the respondent No. 1 with the respondent No. 2 and further, for the direction to restrain the respondent No. 2 from carrying out the investigation in relation to the said complaint.

( 3 ) IT is the case of the petitioner that in the course of its regular business, it had sanctioned loan to the respondent No. 1 and accordingly had disbursed an amount of Rs. 1,45,00,000/- in terms of the loan agreement dated 15-9-2000. Having obtained the said loan, the respondent No. 1 issued three post-dated cheques - one dated 1-7-2002 towards the repayment of the principal amount of rs. 1,45,00,000/- and the remaining two dated 15-9-2001 - one for a sum of rs. 18,09,600/- towards the interest payable upto 15-9-2001 and another for rs. 14,32,807/- towards the interest payable for the period from 15-9-2001 to 30-6-2002. The cheques towards the interest payment were issued after deduction of the tax at source. The respondent No. 1 also deposited the shares of various companies by way of pledge in pursuance of the said loan agreement. The respondent No. 1 committed various defaults with regard to the maintenance of the margin of the securities as well as on account of non-payment of the interest, and therefore, a notice dated 24-11-2001 was issued to the respondent No. 1 recalling the entire outstanding loan. Despite repeated demands, since the respondent No. 1 failed to clear the dues, the petitioner in exercise of its right under the loan agreement sold the securities pledged with it and realised an amount of Rs. 78,50,066/-, which was credited to the account of the respondent no. 1. Thereafter the petitioner initiated arbitration proceedings for recovery of the balance amount. During the pendency of the arbitration proceedings, the remaining pledged securities were also sold and a further amount of rs. 17,47,900/- was recovered, which was also credited to the account of the respondent No. 1. During the pendency of the arbitration proceedings, the respondent No. 1 filed a suit being Suit No. 3349 of 2002 in the City Civil Court and obtained an ex parte injunction restraining the petitioner from encashing the cheques which were issued for the amount of Rs. 1,45,00,000/- and rs. 14,32,807/ -. The arbitrator declared his award on 23-12-2002 and thereunder directed the respondent No. 1 to pay to the petitioner a sum of Rs. 82,26,164/- together with interest at the rate of 16% per annum on the sum of Rs. 94,94,183/- from the date of filing of the statement of claim till 21-6-2002, and a sum of rs. 77,46,283/- from 22-6-2002 till the date of the payment together with the costs of Rs. 3,25,000/ -. Since the injunction order was to remain in force till the disposal of the arbitration proceedings, consequent to receipt of the award it stood vacated, the petitioner deposited cheques of Rs. 1,45,00,000/- as well as Rs. 14,32,807/- with the bankers but the same were dishonoured on account of the instructions issued by the respondent No. 1 for stop-payment. The notices under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act were issued to the respondent No. 1 on 6-1-2003 consequent to the bouncing of the said two cheques. However, the claim for dues in the notices was restricted to the extent of the amount payable under the award, and the demand was not extended to the whole of the amount specified in the cheques. Since the respondent No. 1 did not pay any amount inspite of receipt of the notices, the complaints were filed in the Court of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, thane being Criminal Complaints Nos. 544 and 545 of 2003.

( 4 ) THE petitioner received a notice dated 3-12-2004 issued by the respondent No. 2 calling upon the executive director and the other senior officers of the bank to attend the office of the respondent No. 2 for the purpose of investigation i