JUDGMENT :

1. Rule. Monali Bhatt, learned Additional Public Prosecutor and Mr. Vipul B. Sundeshal learned advocate waive service of notice of rule on behalf of respective parties.

2. This application has been filed under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for quashing and setting aside the complaint being FIR No.I/9/2019, dated 29.01.2019 registered with Satellite Police Station, Dist.: Ahmedabad City for offences punishable under sections 406, 420 and 114 of IPC qua the present applicants.

3. Few facts relevant for consideration of the present petition are stated hereinbelow:

3.1 The applicant nos.1 and 2 are the employees of IndusInd Bank Limited (hereinafter referred to as the 'Bank', for short) and the applicant no.3 is a former employee of the Bank, who left the Bank from 06.03.2017.

3.2 A company namely, Gallops Infrastructure Limited (in short 'Gallops'), wherein the respondent no.2 - original complainant appears to be a Director, had approached the Bank with a request to provide facility of Bank Guarantee on account of entering into a development agreement with one Vestas Wind Technology India Private Limited (hereinafter referred to as 'Vestas' for short) and as per proposed agreement the Gallops was required to furnish an Advanced Bank Guarantee as well as a Performance Bank Guarantee in favour of Vestas.

3.3 On 21.12.2015, the Bank sanctioned a facility in favour of Gallops. Under the said facility, for a period of 12 months, Gallops was eligible to seek Bank Guarantees upto the total sanctioned limit of Rs.44 crores. In the said facility (i) the Gallops was eligible to seek an advance bank guarantee upto Rs.22.88 crores for the tenor of upto 18 months and (ii) a performance bank guarantee upto Rs.21.12 crores for the tenor of 30 months. For availing the said facility, the Gallops was required to make a fixed deposit of Rs.44 crores with the Bank and Rs.46 lakhs were to be charged to the Company by the Bank as commitment fees. The Bank has further indicated that the bank guarantee commission payable by Gallops on issuance of the Bank Guarantee would be adjusted in the commitment fees paid by Gallops for sanction of the facility and the details of the same were laid down in the letter of the Bank dated 30.12.2015.

3.4 In the said letter dated 30.12.2015, it was pointed out that bank guarantee commission for the advance bank guarantee of Rs.22.49 crores for a period of one year was Rs.16 lakhs and bank guarantee commission for the performance bank guarantee of Rs.20.76 crores for a period of one year was Rs.15 lakhs, and for a period of two years was Rs.30 lakhs.

3.5 Pursuant to the request of Gallops, the Bank issued two bank guarantees in favour of Vestas being Bank Guarantee No.OGT0009160001541 dated 13.01.2016 for Rs.22,45,10,000/-, which was to remain in force till 15.01.2017, with the claim expiry date of 14.02.2017; and Bank Guarantee No.OGT0009160001536 dated 13.01.2016 for Rs.20,72,40,000/-, which was to remain in force till 28.02.2017, with the claim expiry date of 29.03.2017. It is stated that, the aforesaid Bank Guarantee expired on 15.01.2017 and 28.02.2017, respectively. On 01.03.2017, the Bank had addressed an email to Gallops requesting for necessary documents to cancel the expired Bank Guarantees.

3.6 According to the applicants, as per the terms of aforesaid performance Bank Guarantee of Rs.20,72,40,000/-, the claim expiry date occurred on 29.03.2017. On 30.03.2017, the Bank addressed a communication to Vestas informing about the expiry of the claim period, and the fact that the Bank was fully discharged of its liabilities under the said guarantee. Simultaneously, on 30.03.2017, the Bank had also issued a letter to Gallops intimating that the validity and the claim period of the aforesaid performance Bank Guarantee had expired and that no claims had been received from the beneficiary and requested Gallops to follow up with Vestas for the return of the original bank guarantee. The Bank also issued r