Judgment :- (Petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. praying to call for the records relating to F.I.R. in Crime No.1/2004 on the file of the respondents and quash the same.) The petitioners/accused 2 and 3 in crime No.1/2004 on the file of the second respondent have filed this petition to quash the F.I.R. registered against them under Sections 420 and 477 I.P.C. 2. The brief averments in the grounds adumbrated in the petition may be set out briefly as under:- (a) The complaint was presented before the second respondent for further investigation in pursuance of the sanction accorded by the Government and there is no record to show that the complaint was filed before the first respondent who in turn directed the second respondent to register the case. There is no proof to show that the said complaint was given to the second respondent at the first instance. The alleged documents referred to in the complaint have not been produced along with the same so as to make out a prima facie case and therefore the investigation in this case is vitiated under the provisions of Sections 4 and 157 Cr.P.C. (b) The statement recorded from the first accused by the first respondent did not disclose that these petitioners were involved in the case. Further the confession recorded from first petitioner is against the provisions under Section 27 of the Evidence Act. There is inordinate delay in lodging the complaint and the same is not explained in the F.I.R. The alleged occurrences between October 2002 and August 2003 in a single complaint is not legally sustainable. The alleged complaint would in no way attract the penal provisions referred to above. The respondent has not yet filed any final report in this case so far and therefore in view of the above mentioned grounds the same is liable to quashed. 3. The averments in the counter filed by the respondents may be set out briefly as under: - (a) The contentions raised in the petition are baseless. But, on the other hand, in pursuance of the enquiry conducted by the Deputy Superintendent of Police, C.B.C.I.D., Trichy, report was submitted to the higher authorities and upon perusing the enquiry report, the Government had directed the Deputy General Manager, TANCEM, Ariyalur Cement Works, Perambalur District to prefer a complaint before the C.B.C.I.D. Perambalur. But, on the other hand, in pursuance of the enquiry conducted by the Deputy Superintendent of Police, C.B.C.I.D., Trichy, report was submitted to the higher authorities and upon perusing the enquiry report, the Government had directed the Deputy General Manager, TANCEM, Ariyalur Cement Works, Perambalur District to prefer a complaint before the C.B.C.I.D. Perambalur. Hence the complaint preferred before the Deputy Superintendent of Police, C.B.C.I.D., Trichy was endorsed to the Inspector of Police, C.B.C.I D., Perambalur for investigation. Thus, in Crime No.1/2004 under Sections 277 and 420 I.P.C., the case was registered and F.I.R. and copies of documents forwarded to the Deputy Superintendent of Police, C.B.C.I.D., Trichy. (b) Later the Deputy Superintendent of Police, C.B.C.I.D., Trichy conducted a preliminary enquiry and a report was sent to the Government. The Government issued only a direction to prefer a complaint on the basis of the preliminary report and the same has been wrongly interpreted in the petition as sanction. The documents referred to in the complaint have been produced and sent for handwriting expert's opinion through Court. On the direction of the higher authorities the investigating officer has investigated the case and therefore the contention in the petition contrary to such fact will not hold good. The investigation clearly proved the involvement of the petitioners in the commission of the crime and it is a matter of evidence to be decided during trial. (c) The second petitioner is the wife of the first petitioner and the fraudulent transaction is well known to both of them and the cement stocks and other things were sold in a shop with the knowledge of the petitioners. The forged seals and visiting cards in the name of the second petitioner have been recovered. More than 117 witnesses have been examined and their statements recorded. 5 witnesses have given statements in the presence of the Judicial Magistrate that the first accused with connivance of the petitioners cheated the Government funds to the tune of about Rs.9 lakhs. The petitioners were taken custody by the police through court and on interrogation, incriminating materials were recovered from them. Therefore there is no illegality committed by the investigating agency in this regard. (d) The case is still under investigation. The first respondent is incharge of Trichy and Perambalur Districts and therefore he has full jurisdiction to investigate the case as per the orders of the higher authorities. Therefore there is no illegality committed by the investigating agency in this regard. (d) The case is still under investigation. The first respondent is incharge of Trichy and Perambalur Districts and therefore he has full jurisdiction to investigate the case as per the orders of the higher authorities. Though the first information is one and the same, appropriate charges will be levelled against the petitioners for the specific offences in the final report. This petition is filed by the petitioners as an after thought to escape from the clutches of law and therefore the same may be dismissed. 4. The petitioners have filed a reply counter denying the allegations made by the respondents in the counter affidavit. 5. Heard Mr.P.Ramasamy, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr.C.Ramesh, Government Advocate (Criminal side) for the respondents. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that in view of the grounds raised by them in the petition, the First Information Report on the file of the second respondent in Crime No.1/2004 is liable to be quashed. 7. Further, he has submitted in his argument that the investigation was done in violation of the mandatory provisions of Sections 4 and 157 Cr.P.C., since it is not stated that the complaint was given to the concerned police station having jurisdiction. In answer to such contentions, learned Government Advocate (Criminal side) has drawn the attention of this Court to Section 4 Cr.P.C. which reads as follows: - "4. Trial of offences under the Indian Penal Code and other laws. -- (1) All offences under the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860) shall be investigated, inquired into, tried, and otherwise dealt with according to the provisions hereinafter contained. (2) All offences under any other law shall be investigated, inquired into, tried, and otherwise dealt with according to the same provisions, but subject to any enactment for the time being in force regulating the manner or place of investigating, inquiring into, trying or otherwise dealing with such offences." 8. (2) All offences under any other law shall be investigated, inquired into, tried, and otherwise dealt with according to the same provisions, but subject to any enactment for the time being in force regulating the manner or place of investigating, inquiring into, trying or otherwise dealing with such offences." 8. Similarly, learned Government Advocate (Criminal side) has drawn the attention of this Court to Section 154(3) Cr.P.C. in support of his further argument that the first respondent having been satisfied that a cognizable offence is made out prima facie against the accused in this case, directed the second respondent who is subordinate to him to investigate the same and therefore he has contended in my opinion rightly that the provisions under Section 157 Cr.P.C. cannot help advance the argument submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners. Further he has rightly observed that as per Section 157(1) Cr.P.C., the preliminary enquiry conducted by the first respondent was reduced in the form of a report and submitted to the higher authorities and on perusal of the report, the Government directed the Deputy General Manager, TANCEM, Aruiyalur Cement works, Perambalur District to prefer a complaint before the C.B.C.I.D., Perambalur. 9. In this context, he would submit further that the direction from the Government to the Deputy General Manager, TANCEM is not a sanction of prosecution as contended by the petitioners, but it was merely a letter of the Government in C.No.22480/MID 2/2002 dated 9.12.2003 of Industries Department, Lr.No.1532/A4/2003 dated 20.5.2004 of Chairman and Managing Director, TANCEM, Chennai. He has therefore submitted that in pursuance of such Government letters, the Deputy General Manager, TANCEM, preferred the complaint to the first respondent who in turn endorsed the same to the second respondent directing him to register the case and accordingly the case was registered against the accused in this case. A careful consideration of the above submissions made by both sides would reveal unmistakably that the lodging of the complaint had been done in accordance with the procedure and therefore this Court is of the opinion that the preliminary contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioners has to be rejected in limine. 10. Learned counsel for the petitioners has dwelt upon the other contentions raised in the petition so as muster his argument that the First Information Report in his case is liable to be quashed. 10. Learned counsel for the petitioners has dwelt upon the other contentions raised in the petition so as muster his argument that the First Information Report in his case is liable to be quashed. Though he has placed reliance on the decisions ROY v. STATE OF KERALA (2001 M.L.J. (CRL.) 217) and ALLIRAJ GOUNDER v. THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE (2005 (3) C.T.C. 673) in support of his contention referred supra, however, on facts, the ratio in the said decisions are different from that of the case on hand. 11. The same can be distinguished as follows. In 2001 M.L.J. (CRL) 217, the conviction and sentence based on illegal materials collected on search and arrest of the accused was under question and therefore the Supreme Court held that such proceedings solely based upon the illegal procedures adopted by the investigating agency vitiated the trial as well as the conviction and sentence rendered on the basis of such materials. 12. Similarly, in the case in 2005 (3) C.T.C. 673, writ of mandamus was filed for direction that the pending counter case and the closed parent case on the file of one investigating agency be transferred to the other investigating agency for fresh investigation. But, on the contrary, such is not the case here and therefore this Court is of the considered view that the ratio laid down in the said decisions is not applicable to the case on hand. 13. In this connection, learned government Advocate (Criminal side) has submitted in my opinion rightly that such consideration would arise only at the time of trial for the simple reason that the F.I.R. in this case cannot be quashed for the reason that prima facie offence has been made out against the accused. Therefore he has drawn the attention of this Court to the ratio of the decision in STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS v. BHAJAN LAL AND OTHERS (1992 S.C.C. (CRI) 426) in support of his further contention that this case does not fall within the guidelines adumbrated therein by the Supreme Court while laying down the dictum of law with reference to the provision under Section 482 Cr.P.C. 14. Hence, extracting the relevant ratio laid down in the said decision may serve the purpose in this case and the same reads as follows: - "In the backdrop of the interpretation of the various relevant provisions of the Code under Chapter XIV and of the principles of law enunciated by this Court in a series of decisions relating to the exercise of the extraordinary power under Article 226 or the inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code which we have extracted and reproduced above, we give the following categories of cases by way of illustration wherein such power could be exercised either to prevent abuse of the process of any court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice, though it may not be possible to lay down any precise, clearly defined and sufficiently channelised and inflexible guidelines or rigid formulae and to give an exhaustive list of myriad kinds of cases wherein such power should be exercised. (1) Where the allegations made in the first information report or the complaint, even if they are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety do not prima facie constitute any offence or make out a case against the accused. (2) Where the allegations in the first information report and other materials, if any, accompanying the FIR do not disclose a cognizable offence, justifying an investigation by police officers under Section 156(1) of the Code except under an order of a Magistrate within the purview of Section 155(2) of the Code. (3) Where the uncontroverted allegations made in the FIR or complaint and the evidence collected in support of the same do not disclose the commission of any offence and make out a case against the accused. (4) Where, the allegations in the FIR do not constitute a cognizable offence but constitute only a non-cognizable offence, no investigation is permitted by a police officer without an order of a Magistrate as contemplated under Section 155(2) of the code. (5) Where the allegations made in the FIR or complaint are so absurd and inherently improbable on the basis of which no prudent person can ever reach a just conclusion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused. (5) Where the allegations made in the FIR or complaint are so absurd and inherently improbable on the basis of which no prudent person can ever reach a just conclusion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused. (6) Where there is an express legal bar engrafted in any of the provisions of the code or the concerned Act (under which the provisions of the Code or the concerned Act (under which a criminal proceeding is instituted) to the institution and continuance of the proceedings and/or where there is no specific provision in the Code or the concerned Act, providing efficacious redress for the grievance of the aggrieved party. (7) Where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with mala fide and/or where the proceeding is maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the accused and with a view to spite him due to private and personal grudge." 15. If the above criteria are applied to the case on hand, it would be seen that the instant case does not fall under any one of the categories mentioned above and therefore this Court is of the considered view that there is no abuse of the process of court as discerned from the grounds alleged in the petition and other facts and circumstances of the case and it follows that inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. cannot be exercised so as to quash the impugned proceedings. 16. The other grounds raised in the petition have to be considered only at the time of trial on merits by the concerned court after evidence adduced by the prosecution and therefore this Court is of the opinion that none of the other grounds adumbrated in the petition has to be considered by this Court so as to exercise the powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. 17. For the reasons stated above, this petition is liable to be dismissed and is accordingly dismissed. Consequently, Crl.M.P.No.4506 of 2005 is also dismissed.