JUDGMENT

Sandeep Moudgil, J.

The petitioner seeks quashing of the FIR No.357 dated 28.11.2017 under Sections 420 IPC, registered at Police Station Division A, Police Commissionerate, Amritsar.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the complainant advanced friendly loan of an amount of Rs.2,40,000/- on his request to the petitioner and in lieu thereof, the complainant took 3 blank and duly signed cheques as security/guarantee. The petitioner returned an amount of Rs.1 lakh in January, 2017 and assured to return the remaining amount. No cheques were returned by the complainant to the petitioner. Thereafter, the complainant filed 3 complaints under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act against the petitioner. It is further submitted that the complainant, in order to put undue pressure and to resile from the fact of already having received an amount of Rs.1 lakh, filed yet another complaint which culminated into the present FIR No.357 dated 28.11.2017 wherein it has been alleged that the petitioner borrowed an amount of Rs.80,000/- from the complainant and did not return the same.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that initially at the time of lodging of the complaint, the complainant alleged that the petitioner borrowed an amount of Rs.80,000/- but later on, during enquiry proceedings conducted by the police, the complainant recorded a totally different and contradictory statement to the effect alleging that the petitioner promised to arrange a job for complainant's son Simranjit Singh but failed to do so.

4. It is further argued that the petitioner has been falsely implicated by the complainant in the present case, as there is no legal debt and liability towards the complainant. Moreover, the complainant has misused the cheques in question issued by the petitioner.

5. Further, counsel for the petitioner vehemently contended that there is nothing on record to ascertain the criminal liability of the petitioner and other accused persons under Section 420 IPC which envisages that dishonest intention should be from the inception of transaction. He has also placed on record copies of the judgments passed by the court below vide which the above-mentioned 3 complaints filed by the complainant against the petitioner under section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act have been dismissed holding that no offence under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act is made out against the petitioner.

6. Learned State counsel has filed status report dated 09.03.2018 of ACP East, Amritsar City wherein it is averred that during the course of enquiry, the petitioner was issued notices but the petitioner did not join the enquiry and on the basis of evidence produced by the complainant, it came to fore that the petitioner has duped the complainant of Rs.3,20,000/- on the pretext of getting her son appointed in police department.

7. Heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record.

8. A perusal of the judgment dated 01.09.2018 passed by the JMIC, Amritsar in complaint case No.4687 of 2017 Jaswinder Kaur v. Kulwant Singh', shows that respondent did not turn up for her cross-examination and as such, after notice, her evidence was closed. It is well settled that speedy justice to the accused cannot be denied due to negligence on the part of the complainant and therefore, the trial court reached to a conclusion and rightly so, that