ORDER

The 2nd respondent lodged the FIR with the jurisdictional police alleging that, the accused Nos.1 and 2 promised that they would secure him a job, and on 19.2.2015, conducted the interview in the office viz: Beereshwara Enterprises situated at Wilson Garden, and collected a sum of Rs.40,000/- from the informant and his friends, and on the very same day at 6.00 p.m. issued an appointment letter to the informant stating that he has been offered a job at Tata Motors Company. When he showed the said appointment letter to one Mruthyunjaya, he informed to ascertain the veracity of the same with Tata Motor Company.

2. Thereafter, when he approached the Tata Motors Company, he was informed that it was a bogus appointment letter, and when he enquired the same with accused Nos.1 and 2, they stated that the appointment letter was issued at the instance of Ranjitha and Preethi. The police registered the FIR for the offences punishable under Sections 420, 468, 47 and 34 of IPC. Taking exception of the same, the accused No.5 -

Preethi is before this Court.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner - accused No.5 submits as follows:

a) The allegation of cheating and fabrication of the document is as against the accused Nos.1 and 2, and in the absence of any allegation that, the petitioner has either cheated or fabricated the documents, the registration of FIR is impermissible.

b) Even accepting the allegations made in the FIR, there is no allegation as against petitioner-accused herein for the commission of the offences as alleged against her.

c) The charge sheet material allegedly discloses that the petitioner has conducted interview of the candidates and nothing more, and in the absence of any allegation that the petitioner either connived with other accused in cheating the defacto complainant or has fabricated the documents, the cognizance taken by the learned Magistrate is impermissible.

d) The statement of the defacto complainant recorded under section 161 that petitioner/accused herein collected the money, after conducting the interview has no evidentiary value. In support, he places reliance on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the cases of Parvat Singh v State of Madhya Pradesh [(2020) 4 SCC 33] and Rajeev Kourav v. and Baisahab and others [(2020) 3 SCC 317].

e) Even accepting the statement made under Section

161 Cr.P.C, there is no corroborative material produced along with the charge sheet to substantiate the allegation that the petitioner after conducting the interview collected money and issued fabricated the appointment letter.

4. On the other hand learned counsel for the respondent-State submit as follows:

a) The defacto complainant in the further statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C has categorically stated that the accused after conducting the interview, received money while handing over the letter of appointment to the defacto complainant, and clearly discloses the commission of the offences alleged against the petitioner/accused.

b) C.W.51 who is the Officer concerned of Tata Motors company has categorically stated that the offer letter issued to the defacto complainant and others are fabricated and not issued by the Company.

c) The veracity of the allegations can be considered only after full fledged trial and at this stage, the cognizance taken by the learned Magistrate cannot be interfered with. d) The decisions relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner are not applicable to the facts and circumstances of the present case and sought for dismissal of the petition.

5. Considered the submissions made by the learned counsels for the parties.

6. The only question involved in this petition is that whether in the absence of any corroborative material, the police could have laid the charge sheet only on the basis of the statement of the defacto complainant recorded under 161 of Cr.P.C.

7. The allegation of inducing the defacto complainant to part with the money by promising to secure an appointment and also collection