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 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 petitio