Judgment : The petitioner is accused 2 in C.C.No.307 of 1988 on the file of the Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Srivilliputtur. 2. The facts giving rise to the present action may succinctly be stated thus: The first respondent-complainant is a tailor by profession and he is transacting his business under the caption “STAR TAILORS”, 54-A, P.P.Melamada Street, Srivilliputtur. In the vicinity of his tailoring shop, respondents-2- Accused 1 was transacting his business in selling raffle tickets in his shop going by the name “EASWARI LUCKY CENTRE” The first respondent had been purchasing raffle tickets from the shop of accused-1 for the last three years. As and when he purchased such tickets, he would entrust them to accused-1 after writing the word ‘Star’ in Tamil on the back of each ticket and accused-1 in turn would keep such tickets as his agent and return the same after the results were published. The reason stated to be given for such entrustment of the raffle tickets to accused-1 was that he, being the seller of raffle tickets of various States, would come to know about the result of the draw of all the States beforehand and return the tickets to the first respondent duly informing the result of the various draws. 3. On 5. 1988, the first respondent, as usual purchased from accused-1 four raffle tickets by paying Rs.3 per ticket for Madurai District Super Bumper Draw to be held on 25. 1988. After noting down the numbers of the four tickets in his pocket note book and writing the word “Star” in Tamil on the back of each one of the tickets, he entrusted the same to accused-1 on that date itself. The results of the draw held on 25. 1988 were published on 25. 1988. The ticket bearing number AIH 236928, one of the tickets purchased by him and entrusted to accused 1 had won the first prize of Rs.25 lakhs. 4. On coming to know of the result, he rushed to the shop of accused-1 and demanded the return of the four tickets entrusted to him. Accuscd-1 in turn returned the other three tickets, withholding the prize winning ticket stating that he had purchased only three tickets returned. All the efforts made by him to get back the prize winning ticket from accused-1 were of no avail. Consequently, he lodged a report against accused 1 on 6. Accuscd-1 in turn returned the other three tickets, withholding the prize winning ticket stating that he had purchased only three tickets returned. All the efforts made by him to get back the prize winning ticket from accused-1 were of no avail. Consequently, he lodged a report against accused 1 on 6. 1988 and a Receipt No.55/88, was issued by Srivilliputtur Police Station. He also filed O.S.No.220 of 1988 on the file of the District Munsif, Srivilliputtur on 6. 1988 for declaration and injunction impleading accused-1 as well as the State as party-defendants. 5. On coming to know of the police complaint and the Civil Suit, it is stated that accused-1 entered into a conspiracy with petitioner- accused-2 wherein both of them agreed to deposit the prize winning ticket in some bank in the name of accused-2, after erasing the word ‘Star’ in Tamil and to share the prize amount by claiming it in the name of accused-2. 6. In pursuance of the said conspiracy, accused 1 and 2 had erased the word ‘Star’ written on the back of the prize winning ticket with the dishonest intention of claiming the prize amount. Accused-2 appears to have deposited the said raffle ticket with the State Bank of Travancore, Valliam Branch on 16. 1988 falsely claiming the ticket as his. 7. A private complaint given on these allegations had been taken by learned Magistrate on his file under Sec.409 read with Sec.l20-B, 467 and 471 of the Indian Penal Code against accused 1 and 2. 8. On receipt of process, the petitioner - accused-2 had come forward with the present action invoking the inherent jurisdiction of this court to quash the Criminal Proceedings initiated against him. 9. 8. On receipt of process, the petitioner - accused-2 had come forward with the present action invoking the inherent jurisdiction of this court to quash the Criminal Proceedings initiated against him. 9. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would, with all vehemence and seriousness, contend that preference of a private complaint, on the facts and circumstances of the case, is nothing but a sheer and pure abuse of process of law and this will be patent on a perusal of the averments in the complaint in the sense of indicating no offence whatsoever having been made against the petitioner- accused-2, who by virtue of his being the holder of the prize winning ticket is entitled to claim the amount under the ticket on the actual production of the same under R.36-Aof the Tamil Nadu Raffle Rules, 1976, and therefore the Criminal Proceedings initiated against him are liable to be quashed. 10. Learned counsel appearing for the first respondent would, however, repel such a submission. 11. Anxious consideration may now be given to the submission of either counsel. 12.The allegations or averments in the complaint do point out that the first respondent had been in the habit of purchasing raffle tickets for quite sometime past from accused1 - respondent 2 and entrusting the same to him for the obvious reason of knowing the result of the draws prior to the publication of the results in newspapers. They further reveal that he had been in the habit of writing the word ‘Star’ in Tamil in the reverse of the tickets so purchased and then only entrust the same with the custody and possession of respondent 2. The four tickets he purchased for Madurai District Super Bumper Draw from respondent 2 had been entrusted to him after making the writing ‘star’ in Tamil on the reverse of all those tickets. Apart from such averments in the complaint, his sworn statement also reveals entrustment of four tickets to respondent 2 and this aspect of the matter was known to two witnesses stated in the complaint, viz., one Natarajan and Subburaju. 13. Apart from such averments in the complaint, his sworn statement also reveals entrustment of four tickets to respondent 2 and this aspect of the matter was known to two witnesses stated in the complaint, viz., one Natarajan and Subburaju. 13. When the prize winning ticket was refused to be handed over to respondent 1, what all possible could have been done, in the circumstances of the case, had been done by him, in the sense of himself giving a police complaint and also filing of a Civil Suit, after the initial efforts he had taken to secure the tickets from him in an amicable way had failed. No doubt true it is that he had given a complaint against accused-1 alone and filed the Civil Suit against accused-1 and the State Government and he had not impleaded the petitioner-accused-2 in those criminal and civil proceedings. The reason was rather obvious. At that stage, the petitioner-accused-2 had no part to play. Only after the initiation of those proceedings, as per the allegation in the private complaint, accused-1 was stated to have entered into a conspiracy with accused-2 to cheat the first respondent by claiming the prize amount in the name of accused-2, after the eraser of the word ‘star’ written in Tamil on the reverse of the ticket. It is here, the learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that mere allegations on those aspects of the matter are not by themselves sufficient to advance or meet the case of the first respondent, when especially such allegations do not at all point out as to when, where and how and in whose presence, conspiracy between accused 1 and 2 was entered into. In such state of affairs, he would further state that such allegations cannot at all be given any probative weight and credit, in the sense of the same being construed as hearsay materials. To this submission of learned counsel for the petitioner, I am unable to affix my seal of approval. 14. For the proof of evidence of conspiracy, there cannot be any direct evidence in the very nature of things in almost all cases, except in the rarest of a rare case, as very often, conspiracy is hatched under the cover of secrecy. 14. For the proof of evidence of conspiracy, there cannot be any direct evidence in the very nature of things in almost all cases, except in the rarest of a rare case, as very often, conspiracy is hatched under the cover of secrecy. Therefore, the evidence of conspiracy is provable by indirect evidence of certain incriminating circumstances, by deducing or inferring the existence of such conspiracy from such proved or established incriminating circumstances. In the case on hand, even if the entrustment of the prize winning ticket by first respondent with the second respondent is true, then a further question will arise whether he had handed over the same to accused-2 for sharing the prize amount between them pursuant to the conspiracy with a view to cheat the first respondent, after eraser of the word ‘Star’ written in Tamil on the reverse of the ticket. The eraser of the said word ‘Star’ in the ticket cannot at all be proved by any direct evidence and if at all such an eraser is capable of being proved by sending the ticket to an expert for giving an opinion as to whether any eraser had been made on the reverse of the ticket. It is legitimately open to the first respondent to file such a petition before the trial court and such an evidence cannot at all be shut up now. If positive opinion comes forth from the expert, then the same may be taken as an incriminating circumstance, which may be taken along with the other evidence for the proof of conspiracy. In such state of affairs, it is too much to say that there are no prima facie materials available on record pointing out the alleged commission of any offence by the petitioner - accused-2, inclusive of the offence of conspiracy and that the present prosecution launched by the first respondent by filing the present private complaint is sheer abuse of process of law. 15. As such, the petition deserves to be dismissed and is hereby dismissed.