Order : GANESH RAM MEENA, J. 1. This criminal misc. petition under Section 528 of BNSS has been filed by the petitioners for quashing the FIR No.220/2024, registered at Police Station Bhusawar, District Bharatpur for the offences punishable under Sections 120B & 420 of IPC. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners have borrowed Rs. 7,00,000/- (7 lakh) from the complainant and the present criminal case has been registered by the complainant so as to pressurize the petitioners to repay the said amount. Counsel further submits that the amount of Rs. 7,00,000/- was received by the petitioner through a cheque payment and the complainant has remedy of civil suit for recovery of the said amount. 3. Learned Public Prosecutor has opposed the prayer made in the petition. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the complainant submits that the petitioners asked the complainant to give them Rs. 7,00,000/- saying that his ornaments of value of about Rs. 12,00,000/- are mortgaged with the bank and because the time of repaying the payment to the bank is lapsing, the bank may forfeit the ornaments only for Rs. 7,00,000/- whereas, the ornaments are of Rs. 12,00,000/- and making payment they would get release the ornaments. 5. During course of the arguments the counsel for the petitioners was put a query whether the accused-petitioners are willing to pay the amount of Rs.7,00,000/- which was borrowed by them from the complainant? To which, counsel for the petitioners submits that the complainant may avail the remedy of civil suit for recovery of the said amount. 6. Considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioners as well as the learned Public Prosecutor assisted by learned counsel for the complainant and also perused the averments made in the FIR. 7. The offences alleged against the petitioners are of punishable under Sections 420 & 120B of IPC. 8. The cheating has been defined under Section 415 of IPC. 7. The offences alleged against the petitioners are of punishable under Sections 420 & 120B of IPC. 8. The cheating has been defined under Section 415 of IPC. Section 415 of IPC is quoted as under:- Whoever, by deceiving any person, fraudulently or dishonestly induces the person so deceived to deliver any property to any person, or to consent that any person shall retain any property, or intentionally induces the person so deceived to do or omit to do anything which he would not do or omit if he were not so deceived, and which act or omission causes or is likely to cause damage or harm to that person in body, mind, reputation or property, is said to "cheat". Explanation: A dishonest concealment of facts is a deception within the meaning of this section. 9. The law as regards the quashing of FIR has been settled in the case of State of Haryana Vs. Bhajan Lal [1992 Supp (1) Supreme Court Cases 335] , wherein the Hon’ble Apex Court has observed as follows:- “102. In the backdrop of the interpretation of the various relevant provisions of the Code under Chapter XIV and of the principles of law enunciated by this Court in a series of decisions relating to the exercise of the extraordinary power under Article 226 or the inherent powers under Section 48 482 of the Code which 482 we have extracted and reproduced above, we give the following categories of cases by way of illustration wherein such power could be exercised either to prevent abuse of the process of any court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice, though it may not be possible to lay down any precise, clearly defined and sufficiently channelised and inflexible guidelines or rigid formulae and to give an exhaustive list of myriad kinds of cases wherein such power should be exercised. (1) Where the allegations made in the first information report or the complaint, even if they are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety do not prima facie constitute any offence or make out a case against the accused. (1) Where the allegations made in the first information report or the complaint, even if they are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety do not prima facie constitute any offence or make out a case against the accused. (2) Where the allegations in the first information report and other materials, if any, accompanying the FIR do not disclose a cognizable offence, justifying an investigation by police officers under Section 156(1) of the Code except under an order of a Magistrate within the purview of Section 155(2) of the Code. (3) Where the uncontroverted allegations made in the FIR or com-plaint and the evidence collected in support of the same do not disclose the commission of any offence and make out a case against the accused. (4) Where, the allegations in the FIR do not constitute a cognizable offence but constitute only a non-cognizable offence, no investigation is permitted by a police officer without an order of a Magistrate as contemplated under Section 155(2) of the Code. (5) Where the allegations made in the FIR or complaint are so absurd and inherently improbable on the basis of which no prudent person can ever reach a just conclusion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused. (6) Where there is an express legal bar engrafted in any of the provisions of the Code or the concerned Act (under which a criminal proceeding is instituted) to the institution and continuance of the proceedings and/or where there is a specific provision in the Code or the concerned Act, providing efficacious redress for the grievance of the aggrieved party. (7) Where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with malafide and/or where the proceeding is maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the accused and with a view to spite him due to private and personal grudge. 103. (7) Where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with malafide and/or where the proceeding is maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the accused and with a view to spite him due to private and personal grudge. 103. We also give a note of caution to the effect that the power of quashing a criminal proceeding should be exercised very sparingly and with circumspection and that too in the rarest of rare cases; that the court will not be justified in embarking upon an enquiry as to the reliability or genuineness or otherwise of the allegations made in the FIR or the complaint and that the extraordinary or inherent powers do not confer an arbitrary jurisdiction on the court to act according to its whim or caprice.” 10. Taking into consideration the averments made in the FIR, so also the definition of cheating as given under Section 415 of the IPC, at this stage, it cannot be said that the averments made in the FIR does not disclose any cognizable offence. 11. As regards the submissions of the counsel for the petitioners that the complainant is having a civil remedy and complainant is allowed for recovery of the said amount borrowed by the accused- petitioners from him, it is to be noted that on a query put to the counsel for the petitioners to repay the said amount to the complainant which they have borrowed from him through a cheque, counsel for the petitioners did not dispute the fact of borrowing the amount, it is obligatory upon the petitioners to repay the amount, however, the plea taken by the counsel for the petitioners that the complainant has the civil remedy, speaks the conduct of the petitioners that even after admitted fact of borrowing money, instead of repaying the said amount, he is asking the complainant to go for the civil remedy. This shows the conduct and intention of the petitioners. 12. In view of the aforesaid facts and taking into consideration the averments made in the FIR, this Court finds no ground to interfere in quashing the impugned FIR. 13. Accordingly, this criminal misc. petition is dismissed. 14. Stay application and pending application/s, if any, also stand disposed of.