to operate the said bank locker. 6. The learned Senior Counsel submits that taking the allegations at their face value, they do not disclose commission of the alleged offences of Sections 420, 409, 406, 462, 206, 217, 201, 34, 120B and 37 of the IPC. It is submitted that it is settled law that the High Court while considering a petition under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. for quashing the FIR must examine as to whether prima facie the ingredients of the offence have been made out in the FIR or not. In this regard, a reference is placed on the judgment of this Court in the case of Arnab Manoranjan Goswami v. State of Maharashtra and others6 and in the case of Delhi Race Club (1940) Ltd. and others v. State of Uttar Pradesh and another7. 7. Shri Kaul, relying on the judgments of this Court in the case of State of Haryana and others v. Bhajan Lal and others8, submits that the continuation of the prosecution of the appellant-bank and/or its staff under IPC would amount to undue hardship and