34. *IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P.(CRL) 602/2010 SIBY THOMAS ..... Petitioner Through Mr. Wills Mathews & Mr. D.K. Tiwari, Advocates. versus CBI & ANR. ..... Respondents Through Mr. Vikas Pahwa, Standing Counsel for CBI & Mr. Biswajit Kumar Patra, Advocate. Mr. Atul Nanda & Mr. Gaurav Gupta, Advocates for respondent No. 2. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNA O R D E R % 22.04.2010 1. This writ petition is for quashing of the charge sheet. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the cheques in question were not in the name of the petitioner and even otherwise the audio and the video recordings merely show presence of the petitioner and do not confirm or prove that the petitioner was actually involved in commission of any offence. 2. I have examined the charge sheet, which is detailed and specific allegations have been made against the petitioner. The charge sheet makes reference to both Mr. Thomas Joseph @ William and the petitioner herein and the fact that they had demanded money from the complainant. The charge sheet indicates that the petitioner was present with Mr. Thomas Joseph in the car on 11th January, 2005 when the said payment was demanded and again on 12th January, 2005, when the cheques were given. As per the allegations, on 12th January, 2005 the petitioner along with Mr. Thomas Joseph had picked up the complainant and they had driven to a house in Gautam Nagar. The cheques for securing employment were given in the said house. Thereafter, the CBI team along with independent witnesses barged into the house and arrested Mr. Thomas Joseph and the petitioner. 3. In view of the said allegations and other allegations mentioned in the charge sheet, I do not think it is a fit case in which this Court should quash the charge sheet at the initial stage itself on the ground that no offence is made out and the petitioner’s involvement is not established. The conversation and the recordings in the audio and the video will have to be examined at the stage of trial and only after recording and examining evidence, any final conclusion can be drawn. This is not the stage to examine the audio and the video recordings and give any final conclusion. The recordings have to be examined along with statement of witnesses. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner was merely a visitor, who was present at the time when Mr. Thomas Joseph was caught. This is again a question of evidence and it will be premature at this stage to go into the role of the petitioner and his involvement. The writ petition is dismissed. Observations made in this order are for the purpose of disposal of the petition and will not be binding on the trial court. SANJIV KHANNA, J. APRIL 22, 2010 VKR