ANJANI KUMAR SHARAN, J.:–Heard Mr. P.K. Shahi, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Mr. Girijish Kumar for the petitioners and learned APP for the State. The opposite party no.2 appears on 31.10.2018 in one of the batch cases, i.e., Cr. Misc. No.38208 of 2019 by filing Vakalatnama, but till date even after expiry of more than two years, opposite party no.2 has not filed any reply in the quashing application filed by the petitioners. Opposite Party No.2 has only filed I.A. No.01/2019 for vacating the stay granted by this Court, but I.A. No.01/2019 has not been pressed by opposite party no.2 till date. Today also, nobody appears on behalf of opposite party no.2.

2. In view of the facts aforesaid, these quashing applications are being disposed of by this common judgment on the basis of materials available on record.

3. The petitioners, in all the above petitions, have sought quashing of the FIR pertaining to Kotwali P.S. Case No.326 of 2018 dated 26.05.2018 which has been instituted for under Sections 406, 409, 198, 504 and 120B of the Indian Penal Code.

4. In Cr. Misc. No.38208 of 2018, petitioner no.2 is the bank of which petitioner no.1 is the Managing Director, HDFC Bank Ltd., Senapati Bapat Marg, Lower Patel (West), P.S.- N.M. Joshi Marg, Mumbai. In Cr. Misc. No.38484 of 2018, the sole petitioner is the Regional Head Operation, HDFC Bank Ltd., Kolkata. In Cr. Misc. No.41200 of 2018, the petitioner is Chief Compliance Officer, HDFC Bank, Mumbai and in Cr. Misc. No.41303 of 2018, the petitioner is the State Head, Kolkata.

5. The prosecution case is that the opposite party no.2 filed Kotwali P.S. Case No.326 of 2018 wherein he alleged that he was appointed as an Assistant Manager, Transactional Banking Group (Operation) vide letter dated 28.03.2007 and joined in Bhagalpur on 28.03.2007. O.P. No.2 further stated that after working for almost 9 years with the company and while he was working as Senior Manager (Operation) in October, 2015 and remained posted in Bhagalpur, he was put under suspension vide letter dated 25.02.2016 issued by Gourab Roy, RH-WBO-East (accused) on certain lapses on his part while, thereafter, all of sudden vide letter dated 28.06.2016 issued under the signature of Anuj V. Mathur (accused), the opposite party no.2 was terminated from the service without any show cause/Memo/Charge or any communication in this regard. The O.P. No.2 further stated that he was in touch with immediate supervisor Gourab Roy (accused) regarding progress of the pending investigation but he was not informed regarding the same. Colleagues of O.P. No.2 sought information under Right to Information Act from Reserve Bank of India then Reserve Bank of India provided the information vide letter dated 13.07.2017 and confirmed that HDFC Bank reported a fraud incidence of Rs.1.86 crore at Patna and Bhagalpur Branch. The O.P. No.2 again approached the RBI, under RTI and he came to know that HDFC Bank filed a police complaint regarding fraud to the State Police vide GD No.1143 dated 29.07.2016 to Kotwali Police at Patna.

6. It was alleged that the witness of the said complaint sought information under Right to Information Act from the Kotwali Police Station, Patna than information was provided vide letter dated 20.02.2017 in which it has been mentioned that HDFC Bank lodged Sanha on 29.07.2016 GD No.1143 regarding disappearance of Diary of the HDFC Bank not the fraud reported by the accused person and that the matter is being investigated by the police authorities. It was further alleged that when colleague of the complainant had earlier lodged complaint before the National Stock Exchange of India against his illegal termination then the accused informed wrongly vide letter dated 28.04.2017 to the National Stock Exchange of India that his colleague is an accused and ex-employee of the HDFC Bank and he is also involved in the fraud. It was further alleged that vide letter dated 22.05.2017 written by accused to the National Stock Exchange of India in