IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Misc. No. M-15523 of 2009 (O&M) Date of decision: 8th June, 2009 Amardeep Singh and others … Petitioners Versus State of Punjab and another … Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA Present: Mr. Vishal Deep Goyal, Advocate for the petitioners. KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA, J. (ORAL) Present petition has been filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking quashing of FIR No.267 dated 24.12.2008 registered at Police Station City Khanna, District Khanna, under Sections 406, 420, 120-B IPC. Impugned FIR has been annexed as Annexure P-1. In the FIR, it has been stated that petitioner No.3 Harkultar Singh Purewal was appointed as Mediator and Rs.14,25,995/- were kept with him as security, which according to the complainant, has been misappropriated by him and used for raising building. According to the counsel, the matter has been investigated, challan has been submitted and case is fixed for framing of charges. Counsel for the petitioners has submitted that there is no document with the prosecution, from which it can be inferred that the amount was handed over to the petitioner Harkultar Singh Purewal. Prosecution rely upon oral evidence. Criminal Misc. No. M-15523 of 2009 (O&M) Truth and veracity of the oral evidence will be adjudged during the course of trial. Counsel for the petitioners has relied upon ‘State of Kerala v. A. Pareed Pillai and another’ AIR 1973 Supreme Court 326, wherein it has been stated that to make the offence of cheating, necessary ingredient is that there should be dishonest intention at the time of making promise. To the similar effect, counsel has relied upon ‘Hari Prasad Chamaria v. Bishun Kumar Surekha and others’ AIR 1974 Supreme Court 301. Charges are yet to be framed. At the time of framing of the charge, it will be determined by the Court whether from evidence gathered, offence made out is of cheating, falls under Section 420 IPC or is of criminal misappropriation or there is criminal breach of trust and offence falls under Section 406 IPC. Otherwise also, petitioner can raise these arguments before the trial Court at the time of framing of charge. Hence, there is no merit in the present petition and the same is dismissed. [KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA] JUDGE June 8, 2009 rps 2