Sridhar Vs State and Dharmalingam

@JUDGMENTTAG-ORDER

R. Subbiah, J.@mdashThis petition has been filed seeking to call for the records in Crime No. 602 of 2011 on the file of the 1st respondent-police and to quash the same. The petitioner herein is the accused in the case in Crime No. 602 of 2011 registered by the 1st respondent-Police for the alleged offence u/s 420 IPC. The complaint was lodged by The 2nd respondent herein/defacto-complainant as against the petitioner herein alleging that the petitioner herein had cheated him by grabbing the property worth about Rs. 70 lakhs.

2. The averments in the complaint given by the 2nd respondent/defacto-complainant are as follows:-

2(a) The 2nd respondent herein/defacto-complainant is running a company involved in manufacturing baniyans. The defacto-complainant used to borrow loan very often from the petitioner herein for his urgent business needs. On 20.02.2009 the defacto-complainant borrowed a sum of Rs. 1,25,000/- as loan from the petitioner herein. The petitioner herein, after adjusting a sum of Rs. 2,000/- towards interest, advanced a sum of Rs. 1,23,000/- as loan to the defacto-complainant. Further, as security for the said loan amount, the 2nd respondent/defacto complainant has handed over title deeds of the property owned by his mother Rasambal worth about Rs. 15 lakhs, apart from executing a pro-note signed by his mother. The defacto-complainant has also handed over six signed blank papers, two signed twenty rupees stamp papers as additional security to the said loan. The defacto-complainant paid a sum of Rs. 22,500/-to the petitioner herein towards interest from 01.03.2009 to 31.05.2009 in respect of the said loan amount.

2(b) Once again, on 26.05.2009 & 28.05.2009 the defacto-complainant has received another sum of Rs. 9,93,000/- from the petitioner herein as a loan and as security for the said loan amount, the defacto-complainant executed a sale deed in favour of the petitioner''s wife viz., Thamizh Selvi, in respect of his property worth about Rs. 60 lakhs, besides giving four signed twenty rupees stamp papers, twelve signed blank papers, two pro-notes and two cheques signed by him bearing No. 482481 & 482482 drawn on HDFC Bank. The defacto-complainant has paid a sum of Rs. 5,04,000/- towards interest at the rate of Rs. 36,000/- per month, for the loan amount of Rs. 9,93,000/- between 01.06.2009 to 31.07.2010. That apart, the defacto-complainant has also paid another sum of Rs. 82,000/- towards the expenses for the execution of the sale deed in favour of the petitioner''s wife and also to transfer the name in the revenue records. Further, as a security for the said loan amount, the respondent/defacto complainant issued 2 blank cheques singed by him. The defacto complainant has also handed over 4 signed stamp papers, 12 signed blank papers, 2 pro-notes in favour of the petitioner. In spite of the security furnished by the defacto-complainant, the petitioner herein pressurised the defacto-complainant to pay the entire balance amount of Rs. 12 lakhs immediately.

2(c) Hence, the respondent/defacto-complainant had handed over the title documents of his property worth about Rs. 70 lakhs owned by him and asked the petitioner to sell the said property and requested the petitioner, after appropriating a sum of Rs. 12 lakhs towards the loan amount from the sale consideration, to pay the balance amount to him. The petitioner herein had also agreed for the same. Hence, on 27.07.2010 the defacto-complainant has also given a Power of Attorney in favour of the petitioner. But, the petitioner herein in order to cheat the defacto-complainant with a mala fide intention sold the property worth about Rs. 70 lakhs, only for a meagre amount of Rs. 10 lakhs to one Saravanan and threatened the petitioner to pay another sum of Rs. 22 lakhs towards the balance loan amount, stating that if the defacto-complainant fails to pay the said amount, he would take action against him by using the blank papers and other stamp papers, which were signed & handed over by the defacto-complainant to the petitioner herein at the time of availing loans. Hence, the complaint has been filed by the 2nd respondent/defacto-complainant and the same was registered by the 1st respondent in Crime No. 602 of 2011 for the offence u/s 420 IPC.

2(d) Now, the petitioner/accused has come forward with the present petition before this Court seeking to quash the said complaint.

3. At the out set, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that even if the allegations made in the complaint are accepted in entirety, the same do not prima facie constitute any cognizable offence as against the petitioner herein. In this regard, the learned counsel for the petitioner has drawn the attention of this Court to the definition for ''cheating'' given u/s 415 IPC and submitted that for the offence of cheating, there should be a false representation or fraudulent/dishonest inducement to deliver the property or intentional inducement to a person to do or omit to do anything which he would not do or omit to do. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that in the present case, the allegations made in the complaint absolutely would not make out a case for the offence of cheating. There is no false representation of fraudulent/dishonest inducement by the petitioner to the defacto-complainant to make him to deliver any property. The allegations made in the complaint are purely civil in nature and therefore, the complaint is liable to be quashed.

4. In support of his contentions, the learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon the following decisions:-

1) State of Haryana and others Vs. Ch. Bhajan Lal and others,

2) V.Y. Jose and Another Vs. State of Gujarat and Another,

3) Inder Mohan Goswami and Another Vs. State of Uttaranchal and Others,

4) M. Saravana Porselvi Vs. A.R. Chandrashekar @ Parthiban and Others,

5) Baijnath Jha Vs. Sita Ram and Another,

6) Reshma Bano Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and Others,

5. It is yet another submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the complaint was filed by the 2nd respondent/defacto-complainant on the allegation that the petitioner misused the Power of Attorney executed by the defacto-complainant and sold the property belonging to the 2nd respondent worth about Rs. 70 lakhs, only for a lesser sum Rs. 10 lakh and thereafter, threatened the defacto-complainant to pay another sum of Rs. 22 lakhs to him towards the loan amount and thus, the accused had caused a wrongful loss to the defacto-complainant. In this regard, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the defacto-complainant has not produced any documentary evidence along with the complaint to substantiate the allegations made therein.

6. Countering the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned counsel for the 2nd respondent/defacto-complainant submitted that the allegations made in the complaint would clearly make out a cognizable offence as against the petitioner. The 2nd respondent herein/defacto-complainant borrowed a sum of Rs. 9,93,000/- from the petitioner and paid a major portion of the amount towards the interest. Since the petitioner herein insisted the defacto-complainant to execute a power of attorney in respect of the property worth about Rs. 70 lakhs, a power of attorney was executed in favour of the petitioner, with an intention to enable the petitioner to sell the property and to appropriate a sum of Rs. 12 lakhs from the sale consideration towards the loan amount and to pay the balance sale consideration to the defacto-complainant. But, the petitioner herein sold the property of the defacto-complainant worth about Rs. 70 lakhs for a meagre price of Rs. 10 lakhs and threatened the defacto-complainant to pay a further sum of Rs. 22 lakhs towards the loan amount and thus, the petitioner cheated the defacto-complainant. The defacto-complainant had handed over the title deed and executed the power of attorney in favour of the petitioner only by believing the representation made by the petitioner herein that he would sell the property for its original value and after adjusting the loan amount from the sale consideration, he would pay back the balance amount to the defacto-complainant. But, without doing so, the petitioner herein has sold the property for lesser value and threatened the defacto-complainant to pay the balance sum of Rs. 22 lakhs towards the loan amount and thus, cheated the defacto-complainant. Therefore, there is a case for investigation and this is not a fit case to quash the complaint.

7. In this regard, the learned counsel for the defacto-complainant relied upon the judgment reported in Devender Kumar Singla Vs. Baldev Krishan Singla, and submitted that it is not necessary that a false pretence should be made in express words by the accused and it may be inferred from all the circumstances including the conduct of the accused in obtaining the property. Thus, the learned counsel for the defacto-complainant submitted that in the instant case, the allegations made in the complaint would clearly make out a case of cheating as against the petitioner herein.

8. The learned counsel for the defacto-complainant has also relied upon the judgment reported in Meena R. Sampath, Managing Director, Sri Venkatesa Paper and Boards Ltd. Vs. The State and Another, , wherein it has been held by this Court that whether the accused had intention to cheat or otherwise, cannot be gone into at the initial stage. Relying upon the said judgment, the learned counsel for the defacto-complainant submitted that in the instant case, the investigation has not been completed and therefore, at this stage there is no need to consider the quash petition.

9. Further, the learned counsel for the defacto-complainant by relying upon the judgment of the Hon''ble Supreme Court reported in Arun Bhandari Vs. State of U.P. and Others, submitted that if prima facie the allegations showed that there was a guilty intention to induce the complainant to part with the property, that allegation is sufficient to proceed with the investigation.

10. In support of his contentions, the learned counsel for the defacto-complainant has also relied upon the judgments reported in State of Karnataka Vs. M. Devendrappa and Another, , P. Lakshmana Perumal Vs. State by Inspector of Police, City General Crime Branch, Tirnnelveli City, and Padal Venkata Rama Reddy @ Ramu Vs. Kovvuri Satyanarayana Reddy and Others, .

11. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor submitted that the defacto-complainant is a layman and that the petitioner herein by making false representation made the defacto-complainant to hand over the title deeds of the property and thereafter, the petitioner sold the property of the defacto-complainant for a meagre price and after appropriating the loan amount, he threatened the defacto-complainant to pay further sum of Rs. 22 lakhs to him. In similar fashion, the petitioner had cheated some other persons also and complaints have been lodged as against this petitioner by the said persons, who have handed over the title deeds to the petitioner herein. Thus, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor opposed the prayer made by the petitioner in this petition.

12. I have carefully heard the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel for the defacto-complainant and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor and perused the materials available on record.

13. The main allegation of the 2nd respondent herein/defacto-complainant in his complaint is that since the petitioner pressurised him to pay the outstanding balance amount of Rs. 12 lakhs towards the loan availed by the defacto-complainant, a title document pertaining to the property belongs to the defacto-complainant worth about Rs. 70 lakhs was handed over to the petitioner with a request that after appropriating a sum of Rs. 12 lakhs towards the loan amount from the total sale consideration, to pay the balance amount to him. The petitioner has also agreed for the same. Hence, the 2nd respondent/defacto complainant executed a power of attorney in favour of the petitioner herein in respect of his property worth about Rs. 70 lakhs. But, on execution of the power of attorney by the defacto-complainant, the petitioner sold the property worth about Rs. 70 lakhs for a lesser amount of Rs. 10 lakhs and thereafter, further insisted the defacto-complainant to pay another sum of Rs. 22 lakhs towards the loan amount.

14. According to the petitioner, the above said allegations found in the First Information Report do not make out a case for cheating and on the part of the petitioner absolutely there is no false representation or fraudulent/dishonest inducement to deliver the property or intentional inducement to the defacto-complainant to do or omit to do anything which he would not do or omit to do. Therefore, according to the petitioner, when the allegations found in the First Information Report do not disclose any misleading or dishonest intention on the part of the petitioner, the First Information Report which was registered for the offence of cheating as against the petitioner has no leg to stand and as such the FIR is liable to be quashed. Further, even if the allegations made in the complaint of the defacto-complaint are accepted in entirety, the same do not prima facie constitute a cognizable offence. Thus, he prayed for quashing the complaint.

15. In this regard, reliance has been placed by the learned counsel for the petitioner upon the judgment of the Hon''ble Supreme Court reported in State of Haryana and others Vs. Ch. Bhajan Lal and others, , wherein seven guidelines were given for quashing the FIR and as per the Guideline No. 2, if the allegations made in the FIR and other materials, if any, accompanying the FIR do not disclose a cognizable offence, justifying an investigation by the police officers u/s 156(1) of the Code except under an order of a Magistrate within the purview of Section 155(2) of the Code, then the FIR can be quashed.

16. The learned counsel for the petitioner has also relied upon the judgment reported in Reshma Bano Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and Others, wherein by following the guidelines given in State of Haryana and others Vs. Ch. Bhajan Lal and others, , the FIR therein was quashed. Hence, it is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that by following the said judgments, the FIR in the present case has to be quashed.

17. But, it is well settled legal principal that whether the allegations made in the complaint disclose a cognizable offence or not, depends upon the facts and circumstances of each and every case. In the instant case, there is a specific allegation that believing the words of the petitioner that the petitioner would sell the property for its original value and after appropriating the sum of Rs. 12 lakhs towards the balance of loan amount from the total sale consideration, he would pay the balance amount to the defacto-complainant, the original deeds were handed over to the petitioner and a power of attorney in favour of the petitioner was also executed. But, the property worth about Rs. 70 lakhs was sold only for Rs. 10 lakhs by the petitioner and after appropriating the sale consideration towards loan amount, he further insisted the defacto-complainant to pay another sum of Rs. 22 lakhs.

18. According to the prosecution, in similar fashion, the petitioner had received documents from other persons also and made them to execute power of attorney in his favour and sold the properties for lesser price and thereafter, pressurised them to pay further amount and the said persons have also lodged complaints against the petitioner herein. Therefore, according to the prosecution, the conduct of the petitioner shows that his intention is only to cheat the defacto-complainant.

19. While dealing with the present petition, it should be borne in mind that the complaint was given by a layman who has handed over the title documents to the petitioner herein.

20. According to the defacto-complainant, the title documents pertaining to his property worth about Rs. 70 lakhs was handed over to the petitioner herein, since the petitioner insisted the defacto-complainant to pay the balance loan amount of Rs. 12 lakhs immediately. Hence, the defacto-complainant handed over the title document pertaining to his property worth about Rs. 70 lakhs to the petitioner with the requestion that after appropriating the amount of Rs. 12 lakhs towards the loan amount to pay the balance amount to him. The petitioner has also agreed for the same. After receiving the title documents, his property worth about Rs. 70 lakhs was sold for a lesser price of Rs. 10 lakhs by the petitioner based on the power of attorney executed in favour of him and further, threatened the defacto-complainant to pay further sum of Rs. 22 lakhs and thus, cheated the defacto-complainant.

21. According to the prosecution, there is a case for investigation. Only in the investigation it could be revealed, whether the title document was received from the defacto-complainant on a false promise by the petitioner that he would sell the property for its original value and after appropriating sale consideration towards his loan amount, balance amount would be paid to him and later by not doing so by the petitioner, whether any wrongful loss was caused to the defacto-complainant.

22. Hence, I am of the opinion that though the allegations made in the complaint do not contain the ingredients of cheating literally by word by word as found in the definition of cheating, it could be inferred from all the circumstances of the case, including the conduct of the petitioner in obtaining the property from the defacto-complainant, that there is a case for investigation. In this regard, a reference could be placed in the judgment, which was relied upon by the learned counsel for the defacto-complainant, reported in Devender Kumar Singla Vs. Baldev Krishan Singla, wherein it has been held by the Hon''ble Supreme Court as follows:-

7. In order to appreciate the rival submissions, it would be necessary to consider on the background of the factual position as to whether offence punishable u/s 420 IPC is made out, Section 420 deals with certain specified classes of cheating. It deals with the cases whereby the deceived person is dishonestly induced to deliver any property to any person or to make, alter or destroy, the whole or any part of the valuable security or anything which is signed or sealed and which is capable of being converted into a valuable security. Section 415 defines ''Cheating''. The said provision requires: (i) deception of any person, (ii) whereby fraudulently or dishonestly inducing that person to deliver any property to any person or to consent that any person shall retain any property, or (iii) intentionally inducing that person to do or omit to do anything which he would not do or omit if he were not so deceived, and which act or omission causes or is likely to cause damage or harm to that person in body, mind, reputation or property. Deception of any person is common to the second and third requirements of the provision. The said requirements are alternative to each other and this is made significantly clear by use of disjunctive conjunction ''or''. The definition of the offence of cheating embraces some cases in which no transfer of property is occasioned by the deception and some in which such a transfer occurs. Deception is the quintessence of the offence. The essential ingredients to attract Section 420 are: (i) cheating; (ii) dishonest inducement to deliver property or to make, alter or destroy any valuable security or anything which is sealed or signed or is capable of being converted into a valuable security; and (iii) the mens rea of the accused at the time of making the inducement. The making of a false representation is one of the ingredients for the offence of cheating u/s 420. (See Bashirbhai Mohamedbhai Vs. The State of Bombay, )

8. As was observed by this Court in Shivnarayan Kabra Vs. The State of Madras, it is not necessary that a false pretence should be made in express words by the accused. It may be inferred from all the circumstances including the conduct of the accused in obtaining the property. In the true nature of things, it is not always possible to prove dishonest intention by any direct evidence. It can be proved by a number of circumstances from which a reasonable inference can be drawn.

In the judgment reported in Meena R. Sampath, Managing Director, Sri Venkatesa Paper and Boards Ltd. Vs. The State and Another, it has been held by this Court as follows:-

10. The next contention of the petitioner''s side that at the initial stage of making the deposit, there was no mens rea to cheat cannot also be countenanced. Whether they have got intention to cheat or otherwise cannot be gone into at the initial stage, if the contention of the petitioner''s side has got to be accepted, then in all the cases, where the deposits are made and subsequently, the parties are cheated, the defence would come forward with a plea stating that they had no intention to cheat, and therefore, the criminal proceedings could not be proceeded with. Hence, such contention cannot be accepted.

11. The decisions relied on by the learned Counsel for the petitioner and Hridaya Ranjan Pd. Verma and Others Vs. State of Bihar and Another, , and in Ajay Mitra Vs. State of M.P. and Others, , pointing to the existence of the frame of mind for cheating at the initial stage of deposit, have no application to the present facts of the case. Thus, this Court is unable to appreciate all or any one of the contentions put forth by the learned Counsel for the petitioner to quash the proceedings.

It has been held by the Hon''ble Supreme Court in the judgment reported in Arun Bhandari Vs. State of U.P. and Others, as follows:-

27. We have referred to the aforesaid decisions in the field to highlight about the role of the Court while dealing with such issues. In our considered opinion the present case falls in the category which cannot be stated at this stage to be purely civil in nature on the basis of the admitted documents or the allegations made in the FIR or what has come out in the investigation or for that manner what has been stated in the protest petition. We are disposed to think that prima facie there is allegation that there was a guilty intention to induce the complainant to part with money. We may hasten to clarify that it is not a case where a promise initially made could not lived up to subsequently. It is not a case where it could be said that even if the allegations in entirety are accepted, no case is made out. Needless to emphasise, the High Court, while exercising power under Article 226 of the Constitution or Section 482 of the Cr.P.C., has to adopt a very cautious approach. In Central Bureau of Investigation Vs. Shri Ravi Shankar Srivastava, IAS and Another, , the Court, after referring to Janata Dal Vs. H.S. Chowdhary and Others, and Dr. Raghubir Sharan Vs. The State of Bihar, , has observed that the powers possessed by the High Court u/s 482 of the IPC are very wide and the very plentitude of the power requires great caution in its exercise. The Court must be careful to see that its decision in exercise of this power is based on sound principles and such inherent powers should not be exercised to stifle a legitimate prosecution. This Court has further stated that it is not proper for the High Court to analyse the case of the complainant in the light of all probabilities in order to determine whether a conviction would be sustainable and on such premises arrive at a conclusion that the proceedings are to be quashed. It has been further pronounced that it would be erroneous to assess the material before it and conclude that the complaint could not be proceeded with. The Bench has opined that the meticulous analysis of the case is not necessary and the complaint has to be read as a whole and if it appears that on consideration of the allegations in the light of the statement made on oath of the complainant that the ingredients of the offence or offences are disclosed and there is no material to show that the complaint is mala fide, frivolous or vexatious, in that event there would be no justification for interference by the High Court. From a reading of the dictum laid down in the above said judgments, it is clear that it is not necessary that a false pretence should be made in express words by the accused and it may be inferred from all the circumstances including the conduct of the accused in obtaining the property. In the instant case, it is the submission of the prosecution that in a similar fashion the petitioner had obtained title documents from some other persons and sold the property for a lesser price and thereby, caused wrongful loss to the said persons and those persons have also lodged complaints against the petitioner.

23. In this regard, one more reference could be placed in the judgment of the Hon''ble Supreme Court reported in M/s. Jayant Vitamins Ltd. Vs. Chaitanyakumar and another, . The factual aspect of that case would show that the appellant in that case preferred a complaint as against the respondents before the Police u/s 420, 408 r/w 34 IPC on the allegations of criminal conspiracy, cheating & criminal breach of trust. On the basis of the complaint, case was registered by the Police and the investigation proceeded with. During the course of investigation, number of documents were seized. After 9 months from the date of complaint, the Investigating Officer arrived at a conclusion that the allegations were found to be of internal dispute of the company and thus he closed the investigation. Subsequently, under the directions of Superintendent of Police, further investigation was carried on and in that situation, the respondent/accused in that case filed an application u/s 482 of Cr.P.C., for quashing the investigation stating that necessary ingredients to make out an offence u/s 415 have not been made out in the First Information Report. The High Court had allowed the said application filed by the respondent/accused. Aggrieved over the same, the complainant has filed an appeal before the Hon''ble Supreme Court. The Hon''ble Supreme Court set aside the order of the High Court stating that the High Court is not justified without any compelling and justifiable reason to interfere with the investigation, which is on its way. The relevant portion in the said judgment reads as follows:-

4. We have carefully examined the submissions of both the learned counsel. After going through the impugned order and other connected papers, we feel that the High Court was not justified in quashing the investigation which is still on its way. Needless to emphasise that the further investigation in the offence is legally permissible as contemplated by Section 173(8) of Criminal Procedure Code. The learned counsel appearing for the State when asked represents that the investigation is not yet complete and the State would come to a definite conclusion as to the culpability of the appellant only on the completion of the investigation. As repeatedly pointed out by various decisions of this Court that the superintendence thereof is vested in the State Government and the Court is not justified without any compelling and justifiable reason to interfere with the investigation.

5. The decision in State of U.P. Vs. R.K. Srivastava and Another, relied upon by Mr. Natarajan has no application to the facts of the present case. As we feel that any other observation, if made by this Court, may affect either of the parties at any stage, we do not propose to deal with this mater any further. However, we are of the view that the High Court was not justified in quashing the investigation for the reasons mentioned in its order.

The dictum laid down in the above said judgment is squarely applicable to the facts of the case on hand. Since the investigation is on the way, it is too early to come to a definite conclusion as to the culpability of the petitioner at this stage. Therefore, it is not proper to quash the complaint on the ground that the allegations in the complaint literally do not contain the ingredients of cheating word by word.

24. Further, I find that prima facie there is a case for investigation. When that being so, the question of quashing the FIR cannot be entertained at this stage. In this regard, a reference could be placed in the Judgment reported in State of Karnataka Vs. M. Devendrappa and Another, , wherein it has been held by the Hon''ble Supreme Court as follows:-

When exercising jurisdiction u/s 482 of the Code, the High Court could not ordinarily embark upon an enquiry whether the evidence in question is reliable or not or whether on a reasonable appreciation of it accusation would not be sustained. That is the function of the trial Judge. Judicial Process should not be an instrument of oppression, or, needless harassment. Court should be circumspect and judicious in exercising discretion and should take all relevant facts and circumstances into consideration before issuing process, lest it would be an instrument in the hands of a private complainant to unleash vendetta to harass any person needlessly. At the same time the section is not an instrument handed over to an accused to short-circuit a prosecution and bring about its sudden death.

In the judgment reported in Padal Venkata Rama Reddy @ Ramu Vs. Kovvuri Satyanarayana Reddy and Others, , wherein it has been held by the Hon''ble Apex Court as follows:-

31. We have already pointed out various principles and circumstances under which the High Court can exercise inherent jurisdiction u/s 482. When exercising jurisdiction u/s 482 of the Code, the High Court would not ordinarily embark upon an enquiry whether the evidence in question is reliable or not or whether on reasonable appreciation of it accusation would not be sustained. That is the function of the trial Judge. The scope of exercising of power u/s 482 and the categories of cases where the High Court may exercise its power under it relating to cognizable offences to prevent abuse of process of any court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice were set out in detail in Bhajan Lal. The powers possessed by the High Court u/s 482 are very wide and at the same time the power requires great caution in its exercise. The Court must be careful to see that its decision in exercise of this power is based on sound principles. The inherent power should not be exercised to stifle a legitimate prosecution.

32. It would not be proper for the High Court to analyse the case of the complainant in the light of all the probabilities in order to determine whether conviction would be sustainable and on such premise arriving at a conclusion that the proceedings are to be quashed. In a proceedings instituted on a complaint, exercise of inherent powers to quash the proceedings is called for only in a case in which the complaint does not disclose any offence or is frivolous, vexatious or oppressive. There is no need to analyse each and every aspect meticulously before the trial to find out whether the case would end in conviction or acquittal. The complaint has to be read as a whole. The statement of witnesses made on oath to be verified in full and materials put forth in the charge-sheet ought to be taken note of as a whole before arriving at an conclusion. It is the material concluded during the investigation and evidence led in court which decides the fate of the accused persons.

From the dictum laid down in the above said judgments, I am of the opinion that in the instant case, on consideration of the materials available on record, I find that there is a case for investigation. It is not necessary for this Court to go into each and every aspect of the complaint at this stage. Further more, even in the course of investigation, the Police can alter the charges, if the materials gathered make out any other offence, and file a final report including all the charges. Only after collecting the materials during the course of investigation, it could be seen whether there is an intention of cheating on the part of the petitioner. Therefore, the present petition is pre-mature in nature. In such view of the matter, I am of the opinion that it is not a fit case to quash the FIR. Therefore, I am not inclined to entertain the present petition.

In the result, the present criminal original petition is dismissed. However, the petitioner is at liberty to approach this Court after filing of the final report by the respondent-Police, if he so desires.

Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.