JUDGMENT 1. -These three misc. petitions have been filed seeking the quashment of the FIR No. 24/97, PS Kotwali, Churu. 2. Mr. Gehlot contends that a reading of the FIR does not disclose commission of a cognizable offence, and therefore the FIR is liable to be quashed. 3. The learned Public Prosecutor submits that the investigation reveals that more amount was charged by the petitioners for the local calls and this amounts to cheating, and therefore, a cognizable offence has been committed by the petitioners. 4. I have gone through the police diary. In the FIR lodged by the Incharge of Dharam Stup, it has been stated that on the firm of M/s. Deepak Enterprises four telephone Nos. 50921, 51127, 50893 & 40121 are installed; two of them are in the name of Smt. Meeha W/o Ganesh Lata and the other two in the name of Surendra Mishra but there is no person by the name Surendra Mishra and thus Ganesh Lata and his brother have obtained the telephones in fake name of Surendra Mishra. On these facts a case under section 420 IPC & 20-A of the Indian Telegraphs Act, 1885 was registered. 5. At the outset, it may be stated that the offence under section 20-A of the Indian Telegraphs Act, 1885 is not of cognizable nature. The offence under section 20-A of the Telegraph Act is punishable with fine of Rs. 1,000/-. In the Act, it has not been provided that the offence is of cognizable nature and therefore the provisions of Cr.P.C. will apply. Part II of the Schedule appended to Cr.P.C. states that if an offence is punishable with imprisonment for three years and upwards, then it is of cognizable nature. Offence punishable with imprisonment for less than three years or with fine is of non-cognizable nature. Obviously, offence under section 20-A of the Indian Telegraph Act, 1885 is non-cognizable offence and police could not register the FIR if some offence of the cognizable nature was not mentioned in the FIR. 6. Coming to the allegations of 420 IPC, it may be stated that in the FIR it has been stated that the Late brothers had taken the telephone connection in the name of Surendra Mishra who is not the resident of that town. The allegations are obviously false. 6. Coming to the allegations of 420 IPC, it may be stated that in the FIR it has been stated that the Late brothers had taken the telephone connection in the name of Surendra Mishra who is not the resident of that town. The allegations are obviously false. Surendra Mishra himself has filed one of the petitions and he has disclosed that he is resident of Ward No. 13 of Churu. As a matter of fact, in the police diary it is no more the case of the police that there is no person by the name Surendra Mishra in Churu and the Lata brothers have taken connection in the fake name of Surendra Mishra. That being so, the allegations in the FIR do not constitute an offence under section 420, IPC. 7. In the police diary, it has been stated that the petitioners charged more amount for the local calls from the customers than the rate fixed. There seems to be a breach of the term of the licence. The licence is not available on the police diary. Even if it is accepted for argument sake that there is a breach of the term of the licence then it is an offence under section 20-A of the Telegraph Act which is of non-cognizable nature. Those facts do not constitute an offence under section 420 of IPC. 8. For the reasons stated above, it is a fit Case in which the FIR should be quashed. 9. Consequently, the petitions are allowed. The FIR No 24/97 of PS Kotwali, Chum is hereby quashed.Petition allowed. *******