Judgment S. Nagamuthu, J. 1. There are two petitions in this petition. They are Accused 3 and 4 in Crime No.34 of 2014 on the file of the respondent police for alleged offences U/s.294(b), 420 and 506(ii) of IPC. They were arrested and remanded to judicial custody on 09.01.2014. They have come up with this petition seeking bail. So far as the 2nd petitioner is concerned, this court, by order dated 17.02.2014, granted bail. So far as the 1st petitioner is concerned, this petition was adjourned and that is how, it is listed today before me for hearing. 2. The case of the prosecution is that the de facto complainant in this case is one Sri.Murugan. According to him, two years before, he had gone to S.R.M. College at Chennai to make enquiry for the purpose of admission of his close relative's son in the said college. At that time, incidentally, he happened to meet the first accused Ganesh. The petitioners herein are the parents of A1. At that time, A1 told the de facto complainant that he was then working as a Professor in the Department of Anatomy in S.R.M. College and he further told that he had connection with many people and using the same, he was able to get admission for students under the management quota in a number of private medical colleges. Thereafter, A1 continued to speak to the de facto complainant over phone. In the month of June, 2014, the relatives of the de facto complainant were trying to get admission for their children namely Ms. Kiruthika and Sri.Saranraj in the First Year M.B.B.S. Course in any one of the private medical colleges. At that time, the de facto complainant was reminded of A1 and accordingly, he took them to A1. At that time, A1 made a false promise that by using his influence with the Personal Secretary of the Management of a private medical college at Puducherry known as "Pondicherry Institute of Medical Sciences (PIMS) he could get admission. For that he demanded a total sum of Rs.26 lakhs as consideration. He wanted a sum of Rs.13 lakhs to be paid as advance. He further told that on 30.06.2012 the student should write a common entrance examination. Accordingly, a part of money was paid to the account of A1. A total sum of Rs.17,18,000/- was paid directly to A1 at his house. He wanted a sum of Rs.13 lakhs to be paid as advance. He further told that on 30.06.2012 the student should write a common entrance examination. Accordingly, a part of money was paid to the account of A1. A total sum of Rs.17,18,000/- was paid directly to A1 at his house. At that time, the petitioners 1 and 2 were present. The 1st petitioner also gave assurance that his son would get admission as promised. The money was counted by the 1st petitioner and his yet another son. Thereafter, neither the money was repaid nor admission was secured in the medical college. Thus, according to the prosecution, the de facto complainant has been cheated. 3. The learned counsel for the 1st petitioner would submit that these allegations are false. He would submit that the 1st petitioner did not receive any amount at all and an attempt has been made to rope in the entire family. He would further submit that as a matter of fact, A1 had given a complaint against the de facto complainant herein on previous occasion on 27.06.2013 alleging that the de facto complainant herein and his friend Reshin had received a sum of Rs.28,00,000/- for admission in first year M.B.B.S. Course for his sister. But they did not repay the amount nor did they secure admission. But, this complaint was not investigated properly. Instead, he was forced to withdraw the complaint. He would further submit that 1st petitioner is an aged person and he has been in jail for more than 45 days. The learned counsel for the 1st petitioner would further submit that as a matter of fact, it is only the de facto complainant who has committed cheating and not the petitioner. 4. The learned Government Advocate [criminal side] would vehemently oppose this petition. He would submit that the whereabouts of A1 is not known. It is learnt that A1 had gone to Nepal and he could not be secured. If the 1st petitioner is released on bail, according to the learned Government Advocate, it would certainly hamper the further investigation and it would also be difficult for the police to secure A1. He would further submit that no amount has been so far recovered from the accused. Having regard to all the above, the learned Government Advocate would pray for dismissal of the petition in respect of the 1st petitioner. 5. He would further submit that no amount has been so far recovered from the accused. Having regard to all the above, the learned Government Advocate would pray for dismissal of the petition in respect of the 1st petitioner. 5. The de facto complainant has filed M.P.No.1 of 2014 seeking to intervene in this matter. The said petition is allowed. I have heard the learned counsel for the intervener as well. According to him, the 1st petitioner and his son along with other accused committed the offence. The 1st petitioner was present at the time when the money was given and he only counted the money in the presence of the de facto complainant and thus, the first petitioner also had played a role. 6. I have considered the above submissions. I have the benefit of perusing the case diary also. 7. From the allegations found in the FIR and the other materials collected during the course of investigation, it is seen that the 1st petitioner had a role to play in the commission of the offence committed by A1. As it is seen from the FIR, the money was paid only in the presence of the 1st petitioner and it was only the 1st petitioner who counted the money in the presence of the de facto complainant. This would go to show that A1 is not as innocent as it is sought to be projected by the learned counsel for the 1st petitioner. I, prima facie, find from the materials available on record that the 1st petitioner had played a substantive role along with A1. As pointed out earlier, A1 has not so far been secured and not even a single pie has, so far, been recovered from any of the accused. The future of two students who had desired to join medical college has been shattered. Neither the accused secured admission in medical college nor did the accused return the amount. Thus, in my considered opinion, prima facie this is a calculated offence of cheating. Therefore, I am not inclined to grant bail to the 1st petitioner. This petition deserves only to be dismissed as against the first petitioner. Accordingly, this criminal original petition is dismissed as against the first petitioner. 8. Thus, in my considered opinion, prima facie this is a calculated offence of cheating. Therefore, I am not inclined to grant bail to the 1st petitioner. This petition deserves only to be dismissed as against the first petitioner. Accordingly, this criminal original petition is dismissed as against the first petitioner. 8. Before parting with this order, I deem it necessary to make the following observations: (i) In this case, the first information relating to the above said offences, which are cognizable, was laid by the de facto complainant to the Commissioner of Police, Chennai City, Chennai, on 11.02.2013. But, the case was registered on the same only on 08.01.2014 (i.e.,) about after a period of one year. The said delay was highlighted as a point by the learned counsel for 1st petitioner. Therefore, this court directed the police officials concerned to file their affidavits/reports individually in this regard. (ii) Sri. S.Selvakumar, Deputy Commissioner of Police, C.C.B., Veppery, Chennai has filed an affidavit dated 26.02.2014 wherein he has stated as follows:- (i) Earliest information relating to these offences was laid on 11.02.2013 before the Commissioner of Police, Chennai City. (ii) The Commissioner of Police, Chennai City, forwarded the same to the Deputy Commissioner of Police, C.C.B., Chennai on the same day. (iii) The Deputy Commissioner of Police, C.C.B., Chennai, forwarded the same to the Assistant Commissioner of Police, Chennai, on the same day. (iv) The Assistant Commissioner of Police, C.C.B., Chennai, vide his proceedings dated 11.02.2013 forwarded the same to the Inspector of Police, C.C.B., Job Racketing Team, Veppery, Chennai. (v) On 27.02.2013, the said information was transmitted to some other Inspector of Police, C.C.B., Chennai. (vi) At last, it was forwarded to the Joint Commissioner of Police, West Zone, Chennai, to take necessary action. (vii) The Joint Commissioner of Police, West Zone, Chennai, received the said information on 27.02.2013 itself. (viii) The Joint Commissioner of Police, West Zone, Chennai, in turn, forwarded the same to the Deputy Commissioner of Police, Anna Nagar District. (ix) The Deputy Commissioner of Police, Anna Nagar District, in turn, forwarded the same to the Assistant Commissioner of Police, Thirumangalam Range, on 06.03.2013. (x) It was thereafter forwarded to the Inspector of Police [Crime], J.J. Nagar Police Station on 07.03.2013. 9. (ix) The Deputy Commissioner of Police, Anna Nagar District, in turn, forwarded the same to the Assistant Commissioner of Police, Thirumangalam Range, on 06.03.2013. (x) It was thereafter forwarded to the Inspector of Police [Crime], J.J. Nagar Police Station on 07.03.2013. 9. It is also found from the status report that since no action was taken by the police on the above information laid in writing to the Commissioner of Police, the de facto complainant directly went to J.J. Nagar Police Station on 21.02.2013 and laid another written information. It was registered as a petition in C.S.R.No.9 of 2013. The Inspector of Police [Crime], J.J. Nagar Police Station, held enquiry and summoned A1. 10. While so, A1 and the other accused, against whom allegations have been made, filed a petition in Crl.M.P.No.5328 of 2013 before this court under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. seeking anticipatory bail. When the said petition came up for hearing on 15.03.2013, it was represented by the respondent police that only enquiry was being held and case had not been registered. Therefore, this court directed the enquiry to be completed within eight weeks. This court further directed that the petitioners therein shall not be arrested till then. 11. However, the enquiry was prolonged and it was not completed within eight weeks. In the mean while, the de facto complainant, who was totally dissatisfied with the action taken by the police, filed a petition in Crl.O.P.No.6490 of 2013 before this court seeking a direction to the respondent police for registering an FIR and to investigate the case. By order dated 05.08.2013, this court directed the respondent police therein to look into the complaint and to register a case, if the allegations make out any cognizable offence. 12. Based on the said direction issued by this court, at last, the present case in Crime No.34 of 2014 came to be registered by the Inspector of Police, J.J. Nagar Police Station on 08.01.2014. 13. This case has been registered against as many as four persons. They filed a petition for anticipatory bail before this court in Crl.O.P.No.1755 of 2014 and the same was dismissed on 03.02.2014. Thereafter, these two petitioners were arrested by the police. Now, it is reported that A1 is believed to have escaped to Nepal and he has not been secured so far. 14. They filed a petition for anticipatory bail before this court in Crl.O.P.No.1755 of 2014 and the same was dismissed on 03.02.2014. Thereafter, these two petitioners were arrested by the police. Now, it is reported that A1 is believed to have escaped to Nepal and he has not been secured so far. 14. I am narrating all these facts only to highlight the Constitution Bench judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Lalita Kumari v. State of U.P., 2013 (6) SCC 353 : 2014 L.W. (Crl) 1. In that case, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has issued as many as eight directions to be scrupulously followed by the police throughout the country on receipt of any information relating to cognizable offene(s). 15. The direction (i) is that registration of FIR is mandatory under Section 154 of the Code, if the information discloses commission of a cognizable offence and no Preliminary Inquiry is permissible in such a situation. The direction (iv) is to the effect that the police officer cannot avoid his duty of registering offence if cognizable offence is disclosed. Action must be taken against erring Officers, who do not register the FIR, if information received by him discloses a cognizable offence. 16. Notwithstanding the above directions of the Constitution Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, in a number of matters, this court has come across instances where informations relating cognizable offences were laid directly to the Commissioner of Police, Chennai City, or some other superior police officers believing that prompt action would be taken without any delay. This court also noticed that there were inordinate delays in many cases which paved way for the culprits to escape from the clutches of law by causing disappearance of evidence and by fabricating the document(s). 17. In Crl.O.P.No.932 of 2014 [X. v. Y.] this court found that case the was registered on the information directly laid before the Commissioner of Police, Chennai City, with a delay of 11 days. 17. In Crl.O.P.No.932 of 2014 [X. v. Y.] this court found that case the was registered on the information directly laid before the Commissioner of Police, Chennai City, with a delay of 11 days. In that petition, this court by order dated 30.01.2014, elaborately had dealt with the power of the superior police officer who receives the information relating to the cognizable offences and also impressed upon the duty to register the case in the event such superior police officer opts to exercise his power under section 36 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and all the powers of the station house officer under Chapter XII of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 18. Subsequently, in yet another petition in Crl.O.P.No.2954 of 2014 [P.Sathish Kumar v. State], this court found that the information relating to congnizable offence of cheating (fraud committed on a bank) laid before the Commissioner of Police took a circuitous route changing the hands of several officers and, at last, it saw the light of the day by registration of the case on the same after a delay of ten months. In that petition also, by order dated 13.02.2014, this court expressed its displeasure over the delay. 19. In the instance case, as I have narrated above, the delay is exactly 12 months. Though it is sought to be explained to the court that the written information laid by the de facto complainant to the Commissioner of Police, Chennai City, was immediately forwarded, the fact remains that, the case came to be registered only after 12 months, that too, after a direction from this court under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. In the mean while, A1 has escaped to Nepal and it has become very difficult for the police to secure him. Similarly, a huge amount involved in the scam also could not be recovered. Further, whether A1 is involved in similar nature of offences and whether it is a big scam involving many more persons are all matters to be investigated thoroughly. But, unfortunately, for one year there was not even a case registered on the information which was directly laid to the Commissioner of Police with fond hope that prompt action would be swiftly taken if only information was laid to the Commissioner of Police. But, unfortunately, for one year there was not even a case registered on the information which was directly laid to the Commissioner of Police with fond hope that prompt action would be swiftly taken if only information was laid to the Commissioner of Police. Now, after the registration of the case, no progress could be made in the case because of lapse of time by which A1 had escaped. Each one of the officers who were involved in this delay filed their affidavit(s)/report(s) individually disowning their responsibility for the delay. I do not want to elaborate more on this. I have narrated all these facts only to highlight as to how the belief of the de facto complainant in the system has been shattered. 20. When this was pointed out, today, the learned Government Advocate (Criminal Side) submitted, on the instructions from the superior police officers, that investigation has been transferred to Sri. P. Nandakumar, Assistant Commissioner of Police, Anna Nagar Range. I am only hopeful that at least in future the direction issued by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Lalita Kumar's case cited supra would be scrupulously followed by the police in this State and action would be taken against the police officers, who abdicate their duty to register the case(s) as directed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the judgment cited supra. 21. The learned counsel for the 1st petitioner would submit that from the facts narrated the involvement of the de facto complainant himself and yet another person by name Vishin Stanley in the scam cannot be ruled out. He would refer to the visiting card of the defacto complainant which reads thus: “Aruna-Murugan” Admission Guidance – B.Ed., D.T.Ed., B.E., M.B.B.S., - All Higher Studies & Correspondence Courses”. This would indicate that the defacto complainant was also doing it as a business to get admission in colleges. Thus, the said allegation that the defacto complainant and Vishin Stanley are also involved in the crime also needs investigation. 22. I am only hopeful that if this scam involves anybody else, other than the named accused in the FIR, the same will also be investigated thoroughly. I only express my anxiety that there shall be a proper and thorough investigation so as to bring to book all the persons who are involved in this alleged scam. With these observations I conclude. 23. I only express my anxiety that there shall be a proper and thorough investigation so as to bring to book all the persons who are involved in this alleged scam. With these observations I conclude. 23. The Registry to mark a copy of this order and orders in Crl.O.P.No.932 of 2014 and Crl.O.P.No.2954 of 2014 to the Director General of Police, Tamil Nadu and Commissioner of Police, Chennai City.