Judgment S.N.Pathak, J. 1. All these quashing applications were heard analogous because they arise out of the same order of cognizance dated 5.10.1996 and 22.3.1997 passed by Sri Birendra Singh, Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Patna in Complaint case No. 1050(C)/96 under Sections 406, 409, 420/418 and 120B of the Indian Penal Code. 2. Petitioner of Cr. Misc. No. 16903 of 1997, Mr. Vijay Nath Jha @ Vijay Kumar Jha is the Branch Manager of Dighwara Branch of the Central Cooperative Bank Ltd., Chapra. 3. Petitioner of Cr. Misc. No. 22400 of 1996, Mr. V.H. Krishnamurti @ V.K. Krishnamurti is the Assistant Vice President of M/s M.C.S. Sri Venkatesh Bhawan, Plot No. 27, Road No. 11, MlDC Area, Andheri East, P.S. Andheri, Bombay-400 093. 4. Petitioner of Cr. Misc. No. 22838 of 1996, Mr. Madan Murari Prasad is the Chief Manager, State Bank of India, Shares and Bonds Cell, Chamber Buildings, Judges Court Road, P.S. Gandhi Maidan, Patna. 5. The aforesaid complaint case was filed by one Bipin Kumari Singh alleging therein, inter alia, that she purchased State Bank of lndia Bond for Rs. One Lac from the S.B.I. Branch, Boring Road, Patna. This bond was subsequently requested to be converted into seperate bonds of Rs. 10,000/- each. Her daughter, Rina Singh also purchased bond for Rs. 10,000/- and in both the bonds, the complainant and her daughter were the purchasers as purchaser no. 1 and purchaser no. 2. The complainant had received various amounts of money on account of death of her husband from provident fund, group insurance, gratuity etc. and hence she purchased bond for Rs. One lac. Bonds were sent to the Venkatesh Bhawan, Bombay through the Chief Manager, Shares & Bonds Cell, S.B.I. Local Head Office situated at Judges Court Road, Patna. In the month of November, 1995, the complainant wanted pre-mature redemption for Rs. 60,000/- from the joint name of herself and her daughter. The bonds were sent to the Head Office for redemption through the Chief Manager, S.B.I., Shares & Bonds Cell, Judges Court Road, Patna on 16.11.1995. However, in the month of January, 1996 the bonds of the complainant were returned (vide M.C.S. Ltd., Bombay letter no. Ref.SBl/BONDS/ GRK/REDEMP/95/0000079 dated 15.1.96 and Ref. SBl/BONDS/GRK/REDEMP/ 950000080 dt. 15.1.96) stating therein that the bonds were received for redemption after due date. Hence request for redemption was not fit to be considered. However, in the month of January, 1996 the bonds of the complainant were returned (vide M.C.S. Ltd., Bombay letter no. Ref.SBl/BONDS/ GRK/REDEMP/95/0000079 dated 15.1.96 and Ref. SBl/BONDS/GRK/REDEMP/ 950000080 dt. 15.1.96) stating therein that the bonds were received for redemption after due date. Hence request for redemption was not fit to be considered. It was further stated in the aforesaid letters that next early redemption shall be considered during December, 1996 and the proforma for redemption was also enclosed. It was further requested in the aforesaid letters that the complainant was free to return the complete redemption forms with certificate of discharge under proper signature after January, 1996. The complainant, however, sent request letter for redemption on 24.7.1996 through the Chief Manager, S.B.I. Local Head office, Judges Court Road, Patna. Again number of original bonds were also mentioned in the redemption application form. After this despatch, the complainant was awaiting for redemption, but suddenty, she received a letter dated 7.8.1996 (letter no. SBl/BOND/REDEMP/RHP/96/510) stating therein that on verification of records, it was observed that the bonds had already been redeemed in December, 1995 itself. Moreover, since the bonds were redeemed, the same were deleted from the records of the Bank and the same were transferred S.B.l. Redemption Account. The redemption warrants despatched to the complainant were encashed by the complainant herself as it was disclosed by the redemption warrants. It was further stated in the aforesaid letter that as per the rules, the bond certificate should have been cancelled and retained by the Bank. But inadvertently the same were returned to the complainant without cancellation during December, 1995 on account of oversight. It was still further mentioned in the aforesaid letter that the complainant instead of surrendering the bond certificate had once again forwarded the same for redemption. The aforesaid letter received by the complainant further discloses that warrant of Rs. 50,000/- was encashed at the Central Co-operative Bank Ltd., Chapra and the warrant for Rs. 10,000/- was encashed at Punjab National Bank, Punai Chak Branch, Patna on 9.1.1996 and 2.1.1996 respectively. It was alleged in the complaint petition that the complainant and her daughter did not have any account either at Chapra or at Punaichak Branch of the Central Co-operative Bank. The signatures on the back of the warrants for Rs. 50,000/- are not those of the complainant. The signature of her daughter, Rina Singh, on the warrant for Rs. It was alleged in the complaint petition that the complainant and her daughter did not have any account either at Chapra or at Punaichak Branch of the Central Co-operative Bank. The signatures on the back of the warrants for Rs. 50,000/- are not those of the complainant. The signature of her daughter, Rina Singh, on the warrant for Rs. 10,000/- was also forged. So the complainant alleged that the Chief Manager, S.B.I. and the Assistant Vice President of Bombay and the officials of the Central Cooperative Bank, Chapra, and Punaichak, all colluded and connived in disbursing the amount of bonds to fake persons rather usurped the amount to themselves for their own benefit and thus they committed the offences under Sections 420, 406 and other penal sections of the Indian penal Code. The complainant therefore, prayed for prosecuting these persons. 6. It was submitted on behalf of the Vice President of the State Bank of India Branch, Bombay and the Chief Manager of the Patna Branch that, as a matter of fact, the complainant received the redemption amount through the Banks of Chapra and Punai Chak and therefore, there is no question of any misappropriation or cheating by these officials. Moreover, if at all, any certificates were misdirected or miscarried through the Postal Department, these officials were not responsible for the same and apparently no liability for the alleged forgery of redemption warrants amount being given to any impostor can be fixed on the officials of the Bank. It was submitted on behalf of Vijay Nath Jha that the complainant and her daughter has account in this Bank and it were they who received the redemption amount and, therefore, the petitioner had no liability, if at all there was any misappropriation. 7. It is thus that the petitioners claim their innocence in the alleged forgery of signatures on the redemption warrants and the alleged payment to mistaken persons or to persons of mistaken identities. 8. However, the fact whether the complainant and her daughter had any account in the branches of Central Cooperative Bank of Dighwara, Chapra or Punai Chak, Patna is to be shown and proved during the course of trial. Since the complainant in her complaint petition denied this fact, she would have to prove this fact and the accused persons will have also their burden in substantiating these facts. Since the complainant in her complaint petition denied this fact, she would have to prove this fact and the accused persons will have also their burden in substantiating these facts. The other question would be whether of course the complainant and her daughter had received the redemption warrants and whether they had actually received the amounts in December, 1995, itself would also be question of fact. So far the liability of the petitioners in the aforesaid three miscellaneous cases are concerned, as per allegations of the complainant, the Chief Manager of the State Bank of India, Patna and the Head Office at Bombay, all will have their liabilities in the payment of the redemption amount to rightful persons and if any fake persons or wrong persons were paid the amounts deliberately and intentionally, their liabilities will be complete and they cannot escape from the liabilities incurred under the penal sections of the Indian Penal Code. The very fact that the redemption warrants were returned to the complainant in January, 1996 without actually redeeming them and that the request to send in January, 1996 itself suggests that redemption was secured till December, 1996. The admitted fact that there was cancellation of the certificates and the plea of inadvertence also appears to throw some doubt regarding the bona fides of the accused persons holding offices at Bombay and Patna in the State Bank of lndia. So from the substance of the cases it is apparent that there were certainly something foul and fishy about the whole affair and the truth of the mystery would be unravelled only during the course of trial in the lower court. The order of cognizance cannot be quashed on the mere submissions of the petitioners that they had no liability and that the redemption amounts were paid to the complainant and her daughter. It was submitted before me by the complainants lawyer that the signatures on the alleged redemption warrants were not those of herself and her daughter and they were forged. This fact is also a matter of proof during the course of trial. In any case, therefore, this Court cannot interfere and nip in the bud the case of the complainant which is to be proved after full-dress trial. 9. This fact is also a matter of proof during the course of trial. In any case, therefore, this Court cannot interfere and nip in the bud the case of the complainant which is to be proved after full-dress trial. 9. l find further that it has become customary for the accused persons to come to this Court in quashing applications just to defeat the ends of justice by a short-cut-method and if this Court interferes in quashing applications that will amount to interfering in the free course of justice as also in scuttling the normal course and process of law. 10. With the above observations l do not find that these quashing applications can be allowed. All the three miscellaneous cases are accordingly dismissed.