Judgment :- Mr.K.Kumar, learned senior counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner has come forward with this petition seeking the relief of quashing the First Information Report registered in Crime No.15 of 2005 on the file of the respondent police. 2. The learned senior counsel submitted that the petitioner is the President of the SMG Anjalai Ammal Educational Society and the petitioner is running a teacher training institution in the name of Usha Latchumanan College of Education duly affiliated to Pondicherry University and also approved by the National Council for Teacher Education, Bangalore. The learned senior counsel further submitted that the petitioners college applied to NCTE, Southern Regional Committed, Bangalore, for recognition of B.Ed. course with an intake of 120 students (2 units) in the year 1999. The learned senior counsel that ultimately the NCTE also granted recognition to the petitioner’s institution on 10.08.2004 for the academic year 2004-2005 with an intake of 100 students also submits it. 3. The learned senior counsel submitted that the defacto complainant in this case has preferred a complaint before the respondent police and the same was registered as First Information Report in Crime No.15 of 2005 for the alleged offences under Sections 409 and 420 I.P.C. implicating the petitioner herein. The learned senior counsel also contended that the petitioners institution has not induced or lured the students and the students themselves joined in the petitioner’s institution and therefore, the question of cheating not at all arise. The learned senior counsel contended that the allegations contained in the complaint given by the defacto complainant do not constitute any offence against the petitioner much less the offences under Sections 409 or 420 I.P.C. .4. It is also contended by the learned senior counsel that as a matter of fact, the petitioners institution has taken effective steps by filing a writ Petition and writ appeal before this Court for a direction to the competent authority to consider the application of the petitioner’s college for recognition and for granting permission for the students of the institution to write the examination respectively. The learned senior counsel also contended that even the defacto complainant has completed his course and he was also given the certificate for completion of course as he underwent in the petitioner’s educational institution. The learned senior counsel also contended that even the defacto complainant has completed his course and he was also given the certificate for completion of course as he underwent in the petitioner’s educational institution. The learned senior counsel for the petitioner that admittedly for the academic year 2004-2005, the institution was granted recognition and the institution was allowed to admit 100 students also further submits it. It is further contended that this Court while passing the order in W.P.No.31967 of 2004 dated 10.03.2005 directed the petitioner in the Writ Petition and the third respondent, viz., the petitioner herein to approach the first respondent, viz., the Regional Director, NCTE, S.R.C., Bangalore, for issuing necessary directions to the second respondent, viz., Pondicherry University to hold supplementary examination both for theory and practical to enable the petitioner as well as similarly placed candidates to complete their course. Therefore, it is contended by the learned senior counsel that in view of the order passed by this Court in the above said Writ Petition, the respondent police has no authority to take action against the petitioner on the basis of the complaint given by the defacto complainant, one of the students of the petitioner’s institution. 5. The learned senior counsel for the petitioner further submitted that as on date, the defacto complainant in this case has been permitted to write the examination along with other students in pursuance of the order passed by this Court in W.P.Nos.36582 and 43608 of 2006 dated 112. 2006. The learned senior counsel also produced the copy of the requisition letter given by the defacto complainant dated 12.01.2007 addressed to the Correspondent of the petitioner’s educational institution requesting the institution to include the defacto complainant’s name in the list to be sent to the Pondicherry University for the purpose of writing the examination. The learned senior counsel, in view of the subsequent developments took place in this case, has vehemently contended that the petitioners institution has not committed any offence at all as the grievance of the defacto complainant also already fulfilled by including the defacto complainants name in the list sent to the University of Pondicherry enabling the defacto complainant to write the forthcoming examination for the academic year 2006-2007. .6. .6. Finally the learned senior counsel submitted that the respondent police is picking and choosing the petitioner’s institution alone leaving the other similarly placed educational institutions and the petitioner has been subjected to humiliation and harassment by the respondent police with malafide intention of causing hardship to the petitioner’s institution. 7. Per contra, learned Public Prosecutor (Pondicherry) contended that the allegations contained in the complaint given by the defacto complainant clearly constitutes the offences under Sections 409 and 420 I.P.C. It is submitted by the learned Public Prosecutor that there are 63 complaints preferred by the students against the petitioner’s institution as on date and all the complaints have been treated as one single complaint viz., Crime No.15 of 2005 on the file of the respondent herein. It is submitted by the learned Public Prosecutor that there are specific allegations contained in the complaint to the effect that the defacto complainant has been induced to get admission in the petitioner’s educational institution on the basis of the advertisement of the petitioner’s educational institution in Tamil daily paper “Dinathanthi”. It is also pointed out by the learned Public Prosecutor that the petitioners institution claimed that they are having recognition from the NCTE and they have been permitted to admit only 100 students, but the materials available to show that they have admitted students over and above the permitted strength of 100 students. It is also contended by the learned Public Prosecutor that the respondent police cannot be prevented from continuing with the investigation as the same is in progress. The learned Public Prosecutor also placed reliance on the explanation to Section 415 I.P.C. to the effect that the dishonest concealment of facts is a deception within the meaning of the Section. Therefore, it is contended by the learned Public Prosecutor that the petitioners institution concealed the fact of the stipulated number of students to be admitted in the institution, viz., 100 students from the knowledge of the affected students and thereby their conduct clearly comes under the offence of cheating. Therefore, it is submitted by the learned Public Prosecutor that in view of the specific allegation contained in the complaint, the first Information Report in this case is not liable to be quashed. 8. I have carefully considered the rival contentions put forward by either side and also perused the First Information Report in this case. .9. Therefore, it is submitted by the learned Public Prosecutor that in view of the specific allegation contained in the complaint, the first Information Report in this case is not liable to be quashed. 8. I have carefully considered the rival contentions put forward by either side and also perused the First Information Report in this case. .9. A perusal of the First Information Report in this case makes it crystal clear that there are definite and specific allegations levelled against the petitioners institution by the defacto complainant, one of the aggrieved students in this case. It is specifically mentioned in the complaint itself that the defacto complainant approached the petitioners institution only on issuing the advertisement given by the petitioners institution in Tamil daily "Dhinathanthi". The complaint also contains yet another specific allegation to the effect that after completion of the course when the defacto complainant waiting for writing the examination, he came to know that his name is not included in the list sent to the University of Pondicherry for the purpose of writing the examination and ultimately he has verified and found that the petitioners institution is entitled to admit only 100 students and on the other hand, they have admitted students exceeding 100 in numbers. Therefore, there is no difficulty in coming to the conclusion to the effect that the allegations contained in the complaint prima facie constitute the ingredients of the offence of cheating. 10. The learned Public Prosecutor has rightly placed reliance on the explanation of the offence of cheating under Section 415 Cr.P.C. which reads hereunder: "Section 415 Explanation – A dishonest concealment of facts is a deception within the meaning of this Section." The above said explanation contained under Section 415 I.P.C. for the offence of cheating coupled with the reading of Section 420 I.P.C. clearly shows that the impugned First Information Report contains specific allegation constituting the offence of cheating as it is already pointed out that the defacto complainant has come forward with a definite allegation that the petitioners institution concealed the fact of their entitlement to admit only 100 students and they have admitted over and above 100 students. .11. The orders passed by this Court in W.A.No.1233 of 2005 dated 27.06.2005 and W.P.No.31967 of 2004 dated 10.03.2005 are not at all helpful to advance the contention of the learned senior counsel herein. .11. The orders passed by this Court in W.A.No.1233 of 2005 dated 27.06.2005 and W.P.No.31967 of 2004 dated 10.03.2005 are not at all helpful to advance the contention of the learned senior counsel herein. This Court, in the above said orders, directed the petitioners institution and the respective students who were the Writ Petitioners before this Court to approach the competent authority, viz., NCTE for appropriate remedy for the purpose of enabling the students to write the examination. The yet another order passed by this Court, relied by the learned senior counsel; in W.P.Nos.36582 and 43608 of 2006 dated 112. 2006 is also not helpful to advance the case of the petitioner herein. In that order, this Court directed the petitioners institution to admit the Writ Petitioners as students for the academic year 2006-2007, on a preferential basis out of the permitted intake of 100 students, before admission of outsiders and permit them to attend the classes, practical training and observation and also to take examinations. .12. The learned senior counsel also placed reliance on certain documents annexed along with the petition filed for quashing before this Court. It is well settled by the Honble Supreme Court in STATE OF ORISSA V. SAROJ KUMAR SAHOO reported in (2005) 13 SCC 540 as follows: ."The Court should not act on annexures to the petitions under Section 482 Cr.P.C., which cannot be termed as evidence without being tested and proved." 13. The yet another contention of the learned senior counsel for the petitioner to the effect of mala fides on the part of the respondent police is also unacceptable and untenable. Again, it is relevant to point out that the Honble Supreme Court in the decision cited supra, also held that allegation of mala fides against the informant are inconsequent and cannot by themselves be the basis for quashing the proceedings. 14. It is also well settled by a catena of decisions of the Honble Supreme Court that a First Information Report and the investigation cannot be quashed unless there is no offence spell out from the same. Therefore, in view settled principle of law laid down by the Honble Apex Court and more particularly in view specific and definite allegations contained in the First Information Report constituting the offence of cheating the First Information Report is not liable to be quashed. 15. Therefore, in view settled principle of law laid down by the Honble Apex Court and more particularly in view specific and definite allegations contained in the First Information Report constituting the offence of cheating the First Information Report is not liable to be quashed. 15. The last but not least contention made by the learned senior counsel to the effect that the very same defacto complainant also made a request to the petitioner institution to include his name also in the list to be sent to the University enabling him to write the examination also not helpful to the petitioners educational institution to absolve the institution from the liability of the offence alleged to have been committed by the petitioners educational institution. 16. For the aforesaid reasons, the quashing petition is dismissed. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed. 17. It is made very clear that the observations made in this order cannot influence the mind of the learned trial Judge. 18. The learned senior counsel for the petitioner lastly submitted that leave might be granted for preferring the Special Leave Petition. Since there is no substantial question of law, this Court is constrained to reject the prayer for seeking the relief of grant of special leave.