HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE N.RAVI SHANKAR Crl.P. No.5452 of 2008 O R D E R: Heard Sri Mahesh Raje, learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Additional Public Prosecutor. 2. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor submits that the record is not available with him. Further it is also seen that the defacto complainant in the matter has not been served, though he is arrayed as respondent No.2. 3. The petitioner is the accused in CC No.267 of 2008 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Nandyal (trial court). The said case has been registered on a police charge sheet for the offence punishable under Section 420 IPC i.e., cheating and under the provisions of A.P.State Prize Chits and Money Circulation Scheme Banning Act, 1978. 4. The allegations set out in the charge sheet are that the petitioner issued paper advertisement declaring himself as an authorized dealer of ‘I Team Infomedia Service’ and invited deposits/ monies from the general public promising them business and ultimately, he collected the amounts and cheated the persons from whom he received the deposits. The defacto complainant is said to be one such person, who gave money to the petitioner. 5. So far as the merits of the case i.e., whether the allegations in the charge sheet attract the ingredients of the offence of cheating or other offences are concerned, a perusal of the allegations would show that the ingredients of the said offences are made out and whether they are true or not is a disputed question of fact. 6. Sri Mahesh Raje however, pointed out that the defacto complainant gave a complaint to the police against one Mohan Krishna and not the petitioner and that the petitioner is leading a respectable life in the society as a bank employee and he is in no way connected with the transactions alleged in the charge sheet. It is true that the record would show that the complaint was given against G.K.Mohan Krishna but not against the petitioner–Gandikota G.Prasad Babu @ Mohan Krishna. The charge sheet would however disclose that the police investigated into the matter and found that the mobile number given by Mohan Krishna is the Mobile number of the petitioner and their investigation also disclosed that the petitioner and the aforesaid Mohan Krishna are one and the same. 7. The petitioner’s counsel submits that the conclusion arrived at by the Investigating Officer is not based upon any evidence and therefore, the case should be quashed against the petitioner. The charge sheet reads that police did gather evidence to support their conclusion. Whether that evidence is sufficient or not is again a disputed question of fact which cannot be decided in this quash petition. In these circumstances it follows that the petition cannot be entertained. 8. In the result, the criminal petition is dismissed. However, it shall be open for the petitioner to raise all his defences either in a discharge application if he so advised or in the course of trial, if that is followed. ___________________ N.RAVI SHANKAR, J Dt. 11.11.2011 Mjl/*