HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N.RAVI SHANKAR CRL.P.No.1948 OF 2009 ORDER: Heard Sri Vikram Ragi, learned Counsel for the petitioner, and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor. Notice to the de facto complainant has been sent by the petitioner, and it is served on him. The petitioner herein is A.3 in Crime No.26 of 2009 of P.S. Husnabad registered for an offence punishable under Section 420 IPC. It is stated that the de facto complainant is the father-in-law of the two persons, who had given money to A.3 on the promise made by A.1 and A.2 that they would send visas to them for employment in a foreign country. The other details are not necessary but it would be sufficient to note that A.1 and A.2 are said to have cheated the sons’-in-law by not sending the visas and money was paid to A.3 on the instructions of A.1 and A.2. The allegations do disclose the offence of cheating against all. The contention of Sri Vikram Ragi, learned Counsel for the petitioner, is that the petitioner-A.3 has nothing to do with the money, that, at best, the allegations would show that he received money and passed it on to A.1 and A.2 and that the petitioner-A.3 had never demanded the money from the de facto complainant. It may be noted that the allegations in the complaint do disclose the offence of cheating against the petitioner-A.3 also apart from A.1 and A.2. The question whether the petitioner- A.3 is innocent or guilty is a matter for investigation and is a disputed question of fact which cannot be gone into in this Criminal Petition. Sri Vikram Ragi further contended that the de facto complainant himself is not the victim and, therefore, the complaint as such is not maintainable, and investigation cannot go on. There is no force in this contention. It may be noted that the de facto complainant described himself as the father-in-law of the persons, who gave money to the petitioner-A.3 at the instigation of A.1 and A.2. Thus, the de facto complainant is closely related to the persons who gave money and, therefore, it cannot be said that he cannot give the complaint. Nothing is brought to my notice that, in a situation like this, the complaint given by the father-in-law is not maintainable. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is dismissed. It shall be open to the petitioner to take all the pleas before the investigation officer, and the police shall also keep in view Section 41 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in taking a decision about the arrest of the petitioner-A.3. N.RAVI SHANKAR,J Date:08.12.2011 usd