L. MOHAPATRA. J.

( 1 ) IN this application under Section 482, Cr. P. C. the petitioners pray for quashing the order dated 4. 11. 2003 passed by the learned S. D. J. M. , Bhubaneswar in G. R. Case No. 2610 of 2000 taking cognizance of offences under Sections 419/420/ 120-B/34 of the Penal Code.

( 2 ) IT appears from the record that one Krushna Chandra Pradhan, Chairman, Admission Subcommittee-JEE (EM)-2000 lodged a report before the Inspector-in-charge, Kharavela Nagar Police Station alleging therein that a candidate with General Merit Rank No. 2199 came on 12th August, 2000 to the counselling desk. On interrogation, he admitted that he brought Bank Draft for Rs. 25,000. 00 which was given to him by an unknown person who posed to be his brother. The said candidate further disclosed that the accompanying person had advised him to tell that he is his brother and he would take care of all other things, if he opts for Computer Science and Engineering (payment seat) in ITER, Bhubaneswar. The said can-didate alleged to have admitted that the accompanying person is completely unknown to him and refused to take admission. A copy of the written com-plaint received from the said candidate was enclosed with the F. I. R. and it was alleged in the F. I. R. that a racket is working in seat blocking for the purpose of depriving meritorious students. On the basis of such an information lodged in the Police Station, investigation was taken up. During investigation it was revealed that petitioner No. 1 is the Chairman of ITER and petitioner No. 2 is the brother of petitioner No. 1. For the purpose of admission in the said college both the petitioners 1 and 2 were contacting different students who had secured lower ranks in the Joint Entrance Examination for Engineering and not interested to read in Non-Government Engineering Colleges on payment of donation and were making payment on their behalf for taking admission and were also persuading them to leave the college again on payment of some amount and in the process were blocking the seats to be filled up later on, on receipt of huge amount of money from the non-deserving students. Basically on the above alle-gation, charge sheet was submitted for commission of the aforesaid offences and the learned Magistrate took cognizance of the same.

( 3 ) SHRI B. Baug, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted that even accepting the entire prosecution case, no offence under Section 419 or 420 of the Penal Code is made out. If the principal offence under Sections 419 and 420 is not made out, the order taking cognizance in respect of offence under Section 120-B will automatically fail. In order to support such contention, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners not only drew the attention of the Court to the statements of witnesses recorded during investigation, but also referred to some decisions and submitted that since no offence either under Section 419 or 420 is made out, the order taking cognizance is liable to be quashed. The learned Additional Standing Counsel, on the other hand, submitted that the ingredients of Section 419 or 420 of the Penal Code whether satisfied or not is not be examined at this stage and serious allegations of seat blocking being available in the case diary, there is no reason for this Court to interfere with the impugned order.

( 4 ) IN order to appreciate the rival contentions of the learned counsel appearing for the parties, it is necessary to look into the case diary to see what are the allegations made by the prosecution against the present petitioners. I have already dealt with the allegations made in the F. I. R. and there is no need to repeat the same. Referring to statement of two of the students who are alleged to have faced such type of pressure need to be looked into first. One such statement is, one Tarun Mohanty. In his statement before the police under Section 161, Cr. P. C. he has stated that he was known to petitioner No. 2 and