( 1 ) WHILE issuing Notice on 22. 12. 2006, this Court had stayed the further investigation with respect to the impugned complaints till the returnable date and the same was extended from time to time. Today, when the matter was called out, Mr.. H. Syed learned Advocate for the petitioner produced on record Draft amendment in each of the petitions praying to amend the Prayer Clause by incorporating the following Paragraph in each of the petitions;

"14 (BBB) : This Hon ble Court be pleased to issue a Writ of Certiorari, or any other Writ, order, direction to quash and set aside the Enquiry Case No. 21 of 2003 filed before the learned Chief Metropolitan magistrate, Ahmedabad and further be pleased to quash and set aside the order directing investigation uls. 156 (3) of the cr. P. C. by the learned Chief Metropolitan magistrate in the Enquiry Case No. 21 of 2003 and be pleased to quash and set aside the proceedings arising out of the same".

1]. Looking to the relief which is sought by way of Draft Amendment, it would be relevant to refer to the reliefs claimed in these petitions, which read as under; "a. Your Lordship be pleased to allow the present petition and further be pleased to issue a Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate Writ, order of direction directing the State of Gujarat to transfer the investigation arising out of M. Case No. 10 of 2005 lodged at Gandhinagar Zone Police station, State CID [crime] to any police investigating agency of Mumba. B. Your Lordship be pleased to quash and set aside the order dated 09. 07. 2003 directing the police to investigate the offence as per Section 156 (3) of the cr. P. C, and further be pleased to quash and set aside the order dated 31. 05. 2006 passed by the learned Chief Metropolitan magistrate, Ahmedabad in M. Case No. 10 of 2005 and also be pleased to quash and set aside the order dated 22. 09. 2006 passed by the learned City Sessions Judge, ahmedabad in Criminal Revision Application no. 262 of 2006".

2]. The reliefs as prayed for in these petitions can be granted only by exercising powers under Article 226 and 227 of the constitution of India. The amendment which is sought for, by way of these Draft amendments, is essentially one which could be granted only by exercising powers u/s. 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1908 [for short, "the Code"]. Thus, the amendment which is sought for by way of the Draft amendment is contrary to the reliefs claimed in these petitions. Apart from that the relief that is sought for by way of Draft amendment is to quash and set aside the impugned complaints. The impugned complaints have been filed in July 2003 and the relief of quashing the said complaints, by way of Draft Amendment has been made today only,. e. after a period of almost four years. Therefore, on the ground of delay also, the Draft Amendment cannot be granted. Moreover, the order dated 09. 07. 2003 passed by the learned Chief judicial Magistrate, Ahmedabad was not challenged until 26. 06. 2006,. e. when the revision application was filed before the City civil and Sessions Court, Ahmedabad and, therefore, at this stage, it would not be appropriate to entertain the Draft amendment. Hence, the Draft Amendment is rejected.

( 2 ) COMMON questions on law and facts arise in these petitions and. therefore, they are disposed of by this common judgment.

( 3 ) THE brief facts giving rise to the filing of these petitions are as under;

1]. Respondent - Madhavpura mercantile Co-operative Bank Ltd. , [hereinafter referred to as "the Bank" for the sake of brevity] is a Co-operative Bank having its Registered as well as Head Office at Madhupura Market, Shahibaug, ahmedabad and carrying on banking activities in the State of Gujarat as well as other parts of the country. One of such branches of the respondent -Bank is situated at Mandvi in the City of Mumbai, maharashtra. The respondent - Bank is governed by the provisions of the Multi State co-operative Societies Act, 2002