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 miscarriage of justice. 6 (2021) 2 SCC 427 7 2024 SCC OnLine SC 2248 8 1992 Supp. (1) SCC 335 98. Shri Manish Kumar, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents Nos. 1 to 4, on the contrary, submits that the High Court while exercising powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. cannot conduct a mini trial. It is submitted that this Court in the case of R. Venkatkrishnan v. Central Bureau of Investigation9 has held that though a bank or a financial institution may not suffer ultimate loss but if the money has been allowed to be used by another person illegally for illegal purposes, the ingredients of Section 405 IPC would be attracted. 9. It is submitted that access of the bank locker given to Ms. Sunita Khemka in violation of Section 132(2) of the IT Act would attract the offence under