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