H. H. Mehta, J. : This is a group of 30 Criminal Misc. Applications filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short "CrPC") by the petitioner-original accused No. 3 -Priti Manoj Bhojnagarwala who happens to be the wife of accused No. 2 Manoj Jagdishbhai Bhojnagarwala, with a request to quash and set aside the respective complaints filed by Mr. Priyakant R. Parikh in his individual capacity as well as the Karta of his Hindu Undivided Family and also by his close near relative, as stated in Annexure I which will be a part and parcel of this judgment.

2. With the consent of the learned Advocates for both the parties, these 30 Criminal Misc. Applications are taken up for final hearing in a group and as the common questions of law and facts are involved in this group of 30 Criminal Misc. Applications, they are disposed of by this one common judgment.

3. Common facts leading to this group of 30 Criminal Misc. Applications in a nutshell are as follows. The facts stated hereinbelow are taken from the complaint of Criminal Case No. 3432 of 1998 which is sought to be quashed in (Main) Criminal Misc. Application No. 4188 of 1999.

3.1 The complainant whose complaint is sought to be quashed which is filed as Private Complaint in the Court of the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, Court No. 4 Ahmedabad (who will be referred to hereinafter as the learned Magistrate for the sake of convenience) and as per the complaint of Criminal Case No. 3432 of 1998 which is sought to be quashed by preferring Criminal Misc. Application No. 4188 of 1999, accused No. 1 is Nidhi Investments (Private Firm). Accused Nos. 2 and 3 are the partners in that firm i.e. accused No. 1. Accused No. 2 is a husband of accused No. 3.

3.2. Complainant's sister's daughter has married with one Yogendra Jagdishbhai Bhojnagarwala who happens to be the younger brother of accused No. 2 Manoj Bhojnagarwala and there have been family relations between accused Nos. 2 and 3 complainant since long. As per the case of complainant, Nidhi Investments (Private Firm) started to function and carry on its business with effect from 27.6.1992.

3.3. As stated in Para 3 of the complaint, accused Nos. 2 and 3 both had jointly represented to the complainant through their good offices of Yogendra Jagdishbhai with whom the daughter of complainant's sister has married as well as their (Manoj and Yogendra's) parents namely Jagdishbhai and Sulochnaben, that Nidhi Investment i.e. accused No. 1 handles all portfolio of shares and finances in the most successful way and the complainant being the relative should entrust both these aspects i.e. portfolios of shares as well as finances/deposit management of Nidhi Investments and the parents had orally guaranteed safety and security of the same.

3.4. As stated in Para 4 of the complaint, during the period from 20.12.1997 to 10.9.1998, the complainant Mr. Priyakant R.Parikh advanced his deposits to the tune of Rs. 2,03,00,000 by different cheques to the Nidhi Investments. The particulars of aforesaid deposits are stated in Para 4 of the complaint. It is the case of the complainant that a large amount of money was advanced as deposits on various dates, to the accused and accused Nos. 2 and 3 represented to the complainant that all the members of the family are concerned (connected) with Nidhi Investment, and, therefore, accused No. 2 Manoj is authorised to sign as Authorised Signatory, and, therefore, the complainant had no reason to suspect the mala fide of any of the accused.

3.5. As stated in Para 5(a) of the complaint, the accused were paying back the amounts as well as interest to the complainant. As per particulars given in Para 5(A) of the complaint, the accused returned a total amount of Rs. 1,05,00,000/- towards the principal amount during the period from 4.4.1998 to 16.9.1998 by 12 different items. It is also the case of the complainant that accused have paid in all Rs. 1,02,25,500/- towards interest to the complainan