N. G. SHYAMASUNDER Vs. STATE BY UPPARPET POLICE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD the learned counsel tor the petitioner and the learned HCGP for the first respondent. Perused the records.

(2.) SECOND respondent herein by name Laxmipathi lodged a complaint stating that the petitioner herein has persuaded him and made him to believe that they would get a Government Employment on the quota of physically handicapped and they demanded Rs.50,000/ - and infact he paid the said amount to one person by name, Govinda, accused No.1 and infact this petitioner told the complainant to pay that amount to accused No.1. Then the complainant demanded what is the guarantee for their assurance, then the accused have given a post dated cheque for Rs.50,000/ - drawn on Corporation Bank. According to the complainant, this happened about 15 days prior to the lodging of the complaint. About a week after pa3rment of Rs.50,000/ -, it is further alleged that this petitioner has given a xerox copy of the order of the Court and told that the said document has to be produced before the D.P.A. R., for issue of regular payment order and he further demanded a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/ -. Thereafter the complainant went to the said Physically Handicapped Commissioner's Office and examined the said document given by the petitioner and came to know that those documents are concocted and false documents. On the basis of such allegations, it is alleged that for the purpose of cheating, the petitioner and another have taken Rs.50,000/ - from him and they cheated him by means of producing some concocted document as if the orders passed by the competent authority. On the above said allegations, the police have investigated the matter and found sufficient materials to present the accused persons before the Court. The Court after looking into the charge sheet appears to have taken cognizance and issued summons to the accused persons. 

(3.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner drawn my attention to two documents, one document dated 01.02.2012 issued by the State Commissioner for physically handicapped and another document dated 10.04.2012. The said documents are quite contradictory in nature. In one document it is stated that the document alleged to have been given by the petitioner to the complainant is false and the same is concocted and it is also mentioned in the said letter that there may be some illegal force working and scandling may be there and it is also requested the police to take appropriate measure. Subsequently on 10.04.2012 another letter was given by the same Commissioner stating that the letter issued on 01.02.2012 is the original letter, but nothing has been stated about the earlier letter alleged to have been given by the petitioner to the complainant. Learned counsel also brought to my notice that the complainant has given a letter that he is no more willing to prosecute the accused. Therefore he would like to withdraw the complaint lodged before the Upparpet Police. The xerox copy of the alleged letter is produced before this Court, which does not bear the date. At this stage, this Court cannot come to any conclusion on such undated xerox copy of a document. Under the aforesaid circumstances, when the allegations made in the FIR and subsequently in the charge sheet are sufficient to constitute the offences alleged against the petitioner. At this stage, this Court cannot quash the entire proceedings without ascertaining the genuineness of the documents relied upon by the petitioner before this Court. The Trial Court has to look into the genuineness of these documents and pass appropriate orders. Therefore, it is not a fit case, where the Court can exercise the inherent power under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C.. and quash the entire proceedings. Therefore the petition is liable to be dismissed and accordingly it is dismissed.