A. K. SIKRI, J. ( 1 ) WITH the Police Station, M. S. Garden under Section 420, IPC at the instance of the complainant Sh. Sukhdev Singh. In this FIR, it is alleged that the complainant was introduced to the petitioner by one Sh. Rajinder Singh and the petitioner told the complainant that he had sent Vikrant for Mercantile training, who after completion of his training would get job with some foreign company with salary of US $ 950 per month and for this he will have to spend Rs. 3,00,000/ -. The petitioner thereafter started representing to the complainant that there were two vacancies in the training school and the complainant could send his son and nephew and the petitioner will arrange for their admission and for this purpose he took Rs. 2,60,000/- each from the two boys which included air fare, training expenses, boarding and lodging and expenses to get them job. Thereafter some more amount was taken. In this manner, the petitioner took a total sum of Rs. 5,50,000/ -. The two boys were sent for training at Marine Academy, Mumbai on 23. 11. 2003. However, no certificates were given and no jobs as promised by the petitioner were arranged either. Thereafter the complainant came to know from various other persons that he was cheated by the petitioner the same way as he had cheated many such people by making false promises. ( 2 ) AFTER completion of the investigation, Police has filed charge-sheet and on that basis the petitioner was summoned by the learned MM to face trial. Aggrieved thereagainst, present petition is filed for quashing of the FIR as well as proceedings arising therefrom. ( 3 ) IT is submission of the learned Counsel for the petitioner that allegations are false and motivated and do not disclose any offence against the petitioner. It is also submitted that mala fide intention of the complainant is clear from the fact that the boys had come back after getting training on 4. 3. 2004 and the FIR was got registered only on 11. 2. 2006,. e. after a lapse of two years. ( 4 ) I do not find any merit in the aforesaid arguments. The allegations of cheating are very categorically mentioned in the FIR. 3. 2004 and the FIR was got registered only on 11. 2. 2006,. e. after a lapse of two years. ( 4 ) I do not find any merit in the aforesaid arguments. The allegations of cheating are very categorically mentioned in the FIR. It is alleged that representation was made to the complainant by the petitioner that the petitioner shall be able to arrange for the training of the two boys and will get them placed somewhere as he had done in other cases and they would get salary of US $ 950 per month. It is also specifically averred that on this assurance the complainant parted with money, but after the training neither any training certificate was given nor job was arranged. Therefore, prima facie offence under Section 420, IPC is made out against the petitioner. ( 5 ) INSOFAR as the alleged delay is concerned, it is also specifically stated in the complaint that when the complainant's son and nephew came back on 4. 3. 2004 and the boys did not get any certificate during the training and thereafter, the complainant went to the petitioner but the petitioner made lame excuses. He had been visiting the home of the petitioner and on these visits he met several persons who told the complainant that they were also cheated by the petitioner in the same manner. It is further stated that the petitioner kept on making false promises for 2 years and when the complainant asked for return of money, the petitioner started threatening the complainant with dire consequences. In such circumstances, at this stage it cannot be said that the delay is not explained. Ultimately, the effect of all this is to be seen at the time of trial and it is not a case where the proceedings under the said FIR warrant to be quashed. Dismissed. Crl. M. C. dismissed.