Crl.Misc.No.M-20660 of 2008 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Crl.Misc.No.M-20660 of 2008. Date of Order: July 22, 2010. Shamsher Singh and others. .. Petitioners VERSUS State of Punjab and another. .. Respondents * * * CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE M.M.S.BEDI * * * PRESENT Mr.Liaqat Ali, Advocate, for the petitioners. Mr.P.S.Bajwa, DAG., Punjab. M.M.S. BEDI, J. (ORAL) Petitioners seek the quashing of FIR No.5 dated 15.01.2000, under Section 420 IPC, Police Station, Amargarh, registered at the instance of Kamaljit Kaur alleging that her husband is handicapped and that her father-in-law petitioner No.1, Shamsher Singh had received a sum of Rs.50,000/- from the complainant on the pretext that he had to repay some loan. The said amount was received against a receipt. Sum of Rs.50,000/- has not been returned by petitioner No.1. There are vague allegations against the petitioners that when amount was demanded from petitioner No.1 . . . 1 Crl.Misc.No.M-20660 of 2008 Shamsher Singh, petitioner Nos.2 to 6, had threatened the complainant. I have gone through the report under Section 173 (2) Cr.P.C., which indicates that challan has been presented under Section 420 IPC only. After hearing the counsel for the petitioners, I am of the opinion that petitioner No.1 Shamsher Singh is alleged to have not repaid the money which he had dishonestly received by inducing the complainant with a promise to return the same. The said act of petitioner No.1falls within the definition of cheating under Section 415 IPC, if seen in context to the illustration (f) which reads as follows: - (f) A intentionally deceives Z into a belief that A means to repay any money that Z may lend to him and thereby dishonestly induces Z to lend him money. A not intending to repay it. A cheats. In view of the above circumstances, there is no ground to quash the FIR against petitioner No.1. So far as petitioner Nos.2 to 6 are concerned, the challan has not been presented under Section 506 IPC. Moreover, the allegations against the petitioner Nos.2 to 6 are vague. They have not committed any offence of cheating even as per the allegations in the FIR. The above said FIR qua petitioner Nos.2 to 6, and all the criminal proceedings emanating . . . 2 Crl.Misc.No.M-20660 of 2008 therefrom are hereby quashed, in the interest of justice, as continuation of proceedings against them will be an abuse of process of the Court. Proceedings against petitioner No.1, will, however, continue, in accordance with law. Disposed of. (M.M.S.BEDI) JUDGE July 22, 2010. rka . . . 3