SMT. RANJANA DESAI, J. :- The petitioners in these three criminal writ petitions filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure ("Code" for short) are the accused in the two complaints filed by respondent 1 - the Nedungadi Bank Limited in the Court of the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Kozhikode, Kerala.

2. In Criminal Writ Petition No. 268 of 2003, the petitioners seek quashing of c.c. No. 4 of 2003. The said complaint is filed by respondent I against Rajendra Kumar Banthia (accused 1 therein), the First Custodians Fund (India) Limited (accused 2 therein), Manish Banthia (accused 3 therein) and Surendra Kumar Banthia (accused 4 therein). This petition is filed by the First Custodian Fund (India) Limited (accused 2), Manish Banthia (accused 3) and Surendra Kumar Banthia (accused 4).

3. In Criminal Writ Petition No. 355 of 2003 and Criminal Writ Petition No. 356 of 2003, the petitioners seek quashing of C.C. No.3 of 2003. C.C. No.3 of 2003 is filed by respondent I against Rajendra Kumar Banthia (accused 1 therein), Shrikant Mantri (accused 2 therein) and the Harvest Deal Securities Limited (accused 3 therein). Criminal Writ Petition No. 355 of 2003 is filed by Shrikant Mantri (accused 2) and Criminal Writ Petition No. 356 of 2003 is filed by the Harvest Deal Securities Limited (accused 3).

4. These petitions can be disposed of by a common judgment because both the complaints are based on similar facts. They arise out of similar transactions which according to respondent I have adversely affected its business. The accused in both the complaints are intimately connected with each other. It is necessary at this stage to see the nature of the allegations levelled against the accused and in what manner the accused are connected with each other.

5. At the relevant time, respondent I being a scheduled bank was doing banking business. As per the affidavit of Mr. More, the Manager of the Punjab National Bank, respondent I has since been amalgamated with Punjab National Bank and after the amalgamation, the assets and liabilities, including the rights of respondent I have got vested with the Punjab National Bank.

6. The two complaints which are the subject-matter of the instant petitions were filed by respondent 1 pursuant to scrutiny report of the share transactions conducted at respondent l's Mumbai Regional Office by the Reserve Bank of India (for short, "the RBI"). The learned counsel for respondent 1 has made available to us copy of the said report along with the covering letter dated 6-122002 of the Chief General Manager in-charge of the RBI addressed to the Chairman of respondent 1. The covering letter states that the scrutiny among others revealed serious irregularities and mala fide intention on the part of the broking firms that is accused First Custodian Fund (India) Limited, accused Shrikant Mantri and accused Harvest Deal Securities Limited, who are closely connected with accused Rajendra Kumar Banthia and, therefore, it will be highly essential to take speedy action in the matter against wrongdoers who have misused public deposits.

7. The scrutiny report and the complaints filed pursuant thereto reveal that the RBI had permitted scheduled banks like the complainant to invest in securities within stipulated limits. In the Board meeting held on 26-9-1999, it was decided by respondent 1 to take advantage of arbitrage opportunity in the price of shares in the Mumbai Stock Exchange and National Stock Exchange by trading in equities. Accused Shrikant Mantri, accused Harvest Deal Securities Limited and accused First Custodian Fund (India) Limited were recognized as brokers for the said purpose.

8. Accused Rajendra Banthia had acquired substantial number of shares of respondent 1 and is one of its major shareholders. He had high and considerabk influence on the Board of Directors and the proceedings of the Board. Accused Shrikant Mantri who is a share broker is also