JUDGMENT Sabina, J.:-Petitioner- Charanjit Singh Chawla has filed this petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure seeking quashing of FIR No. 169 dated 24.12.2005 under Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code (‘IPC’ for short) registered at Police Station ‘B’ Division, District Amritsar and all consequential proceedings arising thereto. Prosecution story, in brief, as mentioned in First Information Report (‘FIR’ for short) (Annexure P1) is as under:- “1) That the accused Charanjit Singh Chawla is known to me from last many years and the accused were in dire need of some money in October 2003 and he took Rs. 2,50,000/- as loan from me and promised me that he will return that amount within the same month. After one month when I asked about my money but he refused. After that I alongwith my friends those who were also known to the accused requested to the accused that why he is refusing to give the money back to the complainant. That thereafter the accused gave me a cheque no. 969988 dated 29.3.2004 of Punjab and Sindh Bank, Bhagtawala amounting to Rs. 2,50,000/- and promised that the same cheque is correct and whenever you present the cheque the same will be encashed. 2) That when I went for the issuance of cheque in the month of March the accused told me that he does not have sufficient in his account and asked me to present the cheque after three months. After that on 25.7.2004 I presented that cheque in Punjab and Sindh Bank, Sansafpur Branch in which I have my own account and after few days when I enquired it came to my knowledge that the aforesaid cheque has been bounced. When I received back the cheque and memo, the remarks were found that there is difference of signatures. 3) That the accused wrongly signed with the malafide intention and defrauded and tortured me and when I met to the accused and requested to return my money he said that I will not return your money. Therefore, kindly register a case against the accused for fraud and cheating. Justice may kindly be done”. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that a bare reading of the FIR does not make out a case for commission of an offence of cheating under Section 420 IPC. Therefore, kindly register a case against the accused for fraud and cheating. Justice may kindly be done”. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that a bare reading of the FIR does not make out a case for commission of an offence of cheating under Section 420 IPC. The remedy available to the complainant was to file a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’). In support of his submission, learned counsel has placed reliance on the judgments G.Sagar Suri vs. State of U.P. 2000(1) RCR (Criminal) 707 and Vir Prakash Sharma vs. Anil Kumar Agarwal and another (2007) 7 Supreme Court Cases 373. 3. Complainant was impleaded as respondent No.2 but none has appeared on his behalf today. Although on 23.7.2007, Mr. Vivek Salita Advocate had appeared on behalf of respondent No.2 and had sought time to file reply yet no reply has been filed by the complainant. 4. A bare reading of the FIR does not make out a case of offence under Section 420 IPC. The loan was allegedly taken by the petitioner from the complainant in October, 2003. The cheque in question was issued on 29.3.2004 by the petitioner in favour of the complainant and when the cheque was presented on 25.7.2004 for encashment, the same bounced. Thereafter, the FIR in question was lodged on 24.12.2005. In G.Sagar Suri’s case (supra) the Apex Court in para 8 of its judgment held as under:- “Jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code has to be exercised with a great care. In exercise of its jurisdiction High Court is not to examine the matter superficially. It is to be seen if a matter, which is essentially of civil nature, has been given a cloak of criminal offence. Criminal proceedings are not a short cut of other remedies available in law. Before issuing process a criminal court has to exercise a great deal of caution. For the accused it is a serious matter. This Court has laid certain principles on the basis of which High Court is to exercise its jurisdiction under section 482 of the Code. Jurisdiction under this Section has to be exercised to prevent abuse of the process of any Court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice”. 5. For the accused it is a serious matter. This Court has laid certain principles on the basis of which High Court is to exercise its jurisdiction under section 482 of the Code. Jurisdiction under this Section has to be exercised to prevent abuse of the process of any Court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice”. 5. In Vir Prakash Sharma’s case (supra) it was held that where there was no act of inducement on the part of the appellant and no allegation has been made that he had intention to cheat the respondent from the very inception, then the ingredients of Section 420 (1) IPC were not made out. In the said case, the allegations made against the appellant was that the appellant kept making excuses in payment and at last told the complainant that he had issued fabricated cheques knowingly with intention to cheat him and grab his money. He would not pay his money. He was free to take any action, whatever he liked. It is not the case of the complainant that the cheque in question was not signed by the accused. In fact, the cheque in question bounced with the remarks that there was difference in signatures. From the reading of the FIR, it cannot be said that the petitioner had an intention to cheat respondent No.2 from the very inception. Accordingly, this petition is allowed. FIR No. 169 dated 24.12.2005 under Section 420 IPC registered at Police Station ‘B’ Division Amritsar and all consequent proceedings arising therefrom are quashed. ----------------