ORDER All the three writ applications, namely, Cri. W.J.C. No. 172/07, Cri. W.J.C. No. 907/07 and Cri. W.J.C. No. 96/08 are taken up together as all of them pertain to seek common relief quashing the prosecution against them arising out of Begusarai Town P.S. Case No. 144 of 2007 under Sections 406, 420, 467 and 468 of the I.P.C. instituted on 9.2.2007. 2. One Sri Kant Choudhary, father of Smt. Rashmi Choudhary, original complainant, filed Cri. W.J.C. No. 172/07 whereas one Sheo Kumar Singh who is Passing Officer of the State Bank of India, Branch Manager, Barauni Refinery, Township Branch, filed Cri W.J.C. No. 907/07 and one Sushil Aind @ Sushi Anand who is the Cashier of the same Branch, has filed Cri. W.J.C. No.96/08. 3. The Branch Manager of the said Bank lodged the aforesaid case against petitioner for fraudulent withdrawal of money from the joint accounts of her daughter Rashmi Chaudhary and her husband, Anant Kumar Choudhary. He stated that Rashmi Choudhary has two S.B. Ales. No.01190013922 and Account No.01190009094 joint with her husband, Anant Kumar Chaudhary, respectively. She alleged that her father Shri Kant Choudhary by forging her signature withdrew Rs. 4 lacs through cheque No. 250282 dated 8.6.04 and Rs. 24,000/- through Cheque No. 250286 dated 9.5.2005 from the A/C No. 01190013922. On receipt of such complaint from Rashmi Choudhary, the Branch Manager of this Bank made written complaint with Officer-in-Charge of Begusarai Police Station on 9.2.2007 giving rise to instant case under Sections 406, 420, 467 and 468 of I.P.C. against Sri Kant Choudhary. 4. The petitioner submits that he was an employee of Barauni Township Refinery Branch of S.B.I. On retirement he received a sum of Rs. 15/- lacs of retiral benefit. 5. His wife was an employee in Barauni Refinery and she took voluntary retirement and received Rs. 30,00,000/- (thirty lacs) as V.R.S. He submits that respondent no.3, Rashmi Chaudhary, is his married daughter and stays at Delhi She has opened a joint account with her husband bearing A/C No. 01190013922 and A/C. No.01190009094. As most of the time she remained in Delhi, it was not feasable for her to operate her Accounts. As such she had entrusted some signed blank cheques to the petitioner, her father, for operating the bank Ale as per her requirement. 6. The petitioner in good faith withdrew a sum of Rs. As most of the time she remained in Delhi, it was not feasable for her to operate her Accounts. As such she had entrusted some signed blank cheques to the petitioner, her father, for operating the bank Ale as per her requirement. 6. The petitioner in good faith withdrew a sum of Rs. 4,24,000/- in total from her Joint Account bearing Account No. 011900013922 by presenting the signed cheques of respondent no.3, Rashmi Choudhary. After withdrawing the aforesaid amount he made fixed deposit on the same day making her the sole nominee so that it may fetch her higher rate of interest. He submits that Rashmi Choudhary on account of some misgiving filed a complaint to Branch Manager in undue haste leading to institution of instant criminal prosecution. 7. Learned counsel submits that soon thereafter Rashmi Choudhary realized her mistake and gave a written application to the Chief Manager. State Bank of India, Begusarai on 27.9.2006 stating that she made a complaint under misconception She further stated that she had given blank cheques to her father for using the same for her benefit. Her father who was only a bearer of the cheque made a fix deposit in which she was made a nominee. As such she does not wish to proceed any further with criminal case. A copy of the aforesaid letter has been annexed as Annexure-4. 8. The petitioners of the other two writ applications, namely, Cri. W.J.C. No. 907/07 and Cri. W.J.C. No. 96 of 2008 submit that there is no allegation against them either in the complaint filed by the complainant and not in the case lodged by Branch Manager, Refinery Township Begusarai of S.B.I. They passed cheque and cash was handed over to the father of the complainant on presentation of the cheque after due verification of the signature of the bearer to the best of their ability. 9. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties this Court issued notice to the complainant, Smt. Rashmi Choudhary, respondent no.3, who consequently filed supplementary Counter affidavit. In the supplementary counter affidavit she submits that she can compromise the case on the following grounds: (i) If the petitioner, Sri Kant Choudhary credits the maturity amount of fixed deposit of total amount of withdrawal of Rs. 4,24,000/- in her S.B. Account No. 01190013922 within the stipulated period Fixed by this Court. In the supplementary counter affidavit she submits that she can compromise the case on the following grounds: (i) If the petitioner, Sri Kant Choudhary credits the maturity amount of fixed deposit of total amount of withdrawal of Rs. 4,24,000/- in her S.B. Account No. 01190013922 within the stipulated period Fixed by this Court. (2) It was wrongly alleged by the petitioner that the Respondent no.2 wanted to grab his retiral amount from him hence the falsely implicate him in this case. It is relevant to mention here that the respondent no.2 did not implicate her father rather it was the Bank who found the case true against him and lodged F.I.R. against him under Sections 406, 420, 467 and 468 of the I.P.C. 10. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that total amount has been withdrawn from the fixed deposit and the same has been credited in her Account. 11. Mrs. Nilu Agrawal who appears for the S.B.I. submits that entire amount with interest as stated above has been credited against in the S.B. Account of Rashmi Choudhary. 12. The case was passed over on the previous day as the counsel for the respondent no.3 Smt. Rashmi Choudhary was not present. Today also no one has appeared for her. 13. It appears that there is dispute between the daughter and her father, the petitioner. The dispute related to withdrawal of Rs. 4,24,000/- from her A/C, though the same was put in fixed deposit in which she was made a nominee. 14. It appears that petitioner withdrew the money and put the same in fixed deposit making her his nominee. The action of petitioner cannot be termed to be malafide. 15. The learned counsel for the State submits that the complainant has alleged that her father, Sri Kant Choudhary has forged her signature and withdrawn the money. However, he does not deny the fact that the aforesaid money was put in fixed deposit by Sri Kant Choudhary in which she was made a nominee. 16. In supplementary counter affidavit the complainant, Rashmi Choudhary herself admits that she had given signed cheques to the petitioner, Sri Kant Choudhary and the cheques presented by him was not forged. It also appears that as per her desire expressed in her statements contained in supplementary counter affidavit the amount has been deposited in her S.B. A/c. with full interest. In supplementary counter affidavit the complainant, Rashmi Choudhary herself admits that she had given signed cheques to the petitioner, Sri Kant Choudhary and the cheques presented by him was not forged. It also appears that as per her desire expressed in her statements contained in supplementary counter affidavit the amount has been deposited in her S.B. A/c. with full interest. Section 420 of the I.P.C. is compoundable and respondent no.3 has stated in her supplementary counter affidavit that she is willing to compromise the case if the amount is so credited in her A/c which is finally done. 17. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties this Court finds that the complainant has not made any complaint against the bank officials nor alleged any connivance. The F.I.R. also does not whisper any allegation against them. They have passed the cheques after due verification to the best of their expertise in good faith. 18. In view of the nature of the case and background of the complaint, I am of the view that the prosecution of the bank officials in the instant case will be an abuse of the process of the Court, and as such, the prosecution against them stands quashed. 19. The complainant, Rashmi Choudhary, in her letter dated 27.9.2006 addressed to the Chief Manager of S.B.I., Begusarai, pleaded that her earlier complaint be treated as nonest. She categorically stated that the aforesaid amount was withdrawn, in fact, on the cheques duly signed by her. She also appeared in the Court and filed affidavit stating that she has no hesitation in compromising the case if the sum withdrawn and deposited in F.D. is credited in her account with full interest. 20. In view of the aforesaid circumstances the I.O. would also reckon the aforesaid aspects while concluding the investigation. 21. In view of the aforesaid circumstances this Court directs the I.O. to conclude the investigation which is pending since last two years within a period of two months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order and will also take into account the facts noted aforesaid. 22. With the aforesaid observations and directions these writ applications are allowed to the extent mentioned above. 23. The interim relief granted to the petitioner, Sri Kant Choudhary, will continue till submission of the final form.