Himachal Pradesh High Court
Date Of Decision: 24.3.2026 vs State Of Himachal Pradesh And Anr on 24 March, 2026
Author: Sandeep Sharma
Bench: Sandeep Sharma
2026:HHC:8782
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
CrMMO No. 518 of 2025
Date of Decision: 24.3.2026
.
_____________________________________________________________________
Hardeep Singh
.........Petitioner
Versus
State of Himachal Pradesh and Anr.
.......Respondents
Coram
of
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge.
Whether approved for reporting?
For the Petitioner: Mr. Bhupinder Gupta, Advocate (Through
Video Conferencing) with Mr. Vivek Thakur,
rt
For the Respondents:
Advocate.
Mr. Rajan Kahol & Mr. Vishal Panwar,
Additional Advocates General and Mr. Ravi
Chauhan & Mr. Anish Banshtu, Deputy
Advocates General, for the State.
Mr. Lokender Paul Thakur, Advocate, for
respondent No.2.
___________________________________________________________________________
Sandeep Sharma, J. (Oral)
By way of present petition, prayer has been made by the
petitioner for quashing of FIR No. 275 of 2024, dated 6.9.2024, registered
under Section 420 of Indian Penal Code, at Police Station Una Sadar,
District Una, Himachal Pradesh as well as consequent proceedings pending
in the competent court of law.
2. For having bird’s eye view, facts relevant for adjudication of the
case at hand, are that FIR sought to be quashed came to be lodged at the
::: Downloaded on – 10/04/2026 20:33:04 :::CIS
2 2026:HHC:8782
behest of the complainant namely Rahul Kumar and his wife Smt. Sonali
Thakur, who had been living in ward No.10, Mohalla Behli, Una Town,
.
Tehsil and District Una, Himachal Pradesh, for the last nine years.
Complainant Rahul Kumar, who is in the business of property dealing and
construction of building, saw an advertisement of M/s Harnidh Overseas
Pathway Education (in short “HOPE”), having its office at SCO 33, 2nd Floor,
of
Chhotti Baradari Part-2, Jalandhar, Punjab, whereby it came to be claimed
that its office at Jalandhar is a branch of HOPE for providing services of
rt
Visa and employment in United Kingdom (herein after referred to as “UK”).
The complainant with a view to provide job to his wife namely Sonali
Thakur and education to his daughter namely Yashika, contacted the afore
office of the accused through social media phone number (7743000860)
and asked for the details of the services provided by the Company. One Mr.
Rajat picked up the phone and identified himself as authorized
representative of the HOPE, who apprised the complainant that HOPE is
having collaboration with companies in UK. Above named Rajat after
having inquired the qualification of the complainant assured that HOPE
will arrange for the work permit and job to Ms. Sonali Thakur as skilled
worker. He also assured that in order to get Permanent Residency (PR) in
UK, complainant will be inducted as partner in one of their ventures in UK
to the extent of 10% share of the first year and after one year, his share will
::: Downloaded on – 10/04/2026 20:33:04 :::CIS
3 2026:HHC:8782
be raised to 25%. Allegedly, afore person further promised complainant
and his family members that they will get PR status after three years.
.
Representative of the accused Company Mr. Gagandeep Singh asked for
payment of total consideration of Rs. 30.00 lakh plus expenses of Visa and
Air Tickets in advance for providing these services, however complainant
negotiated the amount and sum of Rs.27.00 lakh plus Visa fee and tickets
of
on actual basis was agreed to be paid. Accused provided bank account
number of Sh. Hardeep Singh, Managing Director of HOPE and his
rt
associates namely Sh. Gagandeep Singh, Ms. Kiran HOPE and Ms. Rhythm
Verma, for transfer of funds. Complainant transferred the agreed amount
through electronic transfer and RTGS to the bank accounts provided by the
above named persons. Initially, amount was transferred to the G-Pay
account of Hardeep Singh, Managing Director of HOPE, who asked for
copies of passport and other documents, which was also provided. Accused
named in the FIR allegedly created email account of their own and filed the
applications for Visa and other purposes without there being authority and
also used incorrect information. The Visa issued by UK Government
showed the complainant Rahul Kumar as partner in business but fact
remains that company detailed herein above, never inducted him as such.
The email ID and password created and used by accused persons was
disclosed to complainant on 30.08.2023. Accused charged the amount of
::: Downloaded on – 10/04/2026 20:33:04 :::CIS
4 2026:HHC:8782
Rs. 1,50,000/- as Visa fee and Embassy charges and Rs. 2,40,000/- as
Airfare. Foreign currency worth Rs. 5,00,000/- was provided for the sum of
.
Rs. 5,39,900/-. Accused provided Air tickets from Delhi to London of
Turkmenistan Airlines for 13.09.2023. Though complainant along with his
family members boarded flight to London, but none came to receive them
there. Despite complainant’s having made number of calls, no response was
of
received by him and had to arrange hotel room at his own. Lastly, call was
answered by the accused on 15.09.2023, wherein they were asked to go to
rt
Luton i.e. another town at a distance of one hour journey through taxi from
London. Though it was promised that at Luton, agent of accused will
provide the promised service, but again at Luton, nobody came to pick up
them, as such, they had to make their own arrangement for stay.
Complainant again contacted Sh. Hardeep Singh and asked for the
promised services, however, Sh. Hardeep Singh told the complainant to
collect the BRP of Mrs. Sonali Thakur from post office at Luton and report
for job. However, Mrs. Sonali Thakur was informed that there is no
vacancy. Since no appropriate arrangements were ever made by the
accused named in the FIR and no job was provided, complainant along with
his family members was compelled to come back to India. His family
friends in India arranged three tickets for them by spending Rs. 95,000/-.
Besides above, complainant spent Rs. 2,50,000/-from own pocket for taxi,
::: Downloaded on – 10/04/2026 20:33:04 :::CIS
5 2026:HHC:8782
hotel and other miscellaneous expenses. In the afore background,
complainant alleged that he has been defrauded and cheated by the
.
accused.
3. After filing of the complaint as detailed herein above, accused
named in the FIR entered into compromise on 7.2.2024 with the
complainant, but failed to adhere to the terms and conditions of the
of
compromise. Complainant alleged that even after having entered into
compromise, accused demanded Rs. 20.00 lakh for providing Visa services
rt
and employment in UK. Since complainant and his family had to suffer
mentaly and economically due to act and conduct of the accused, they
prayed for registration of case against the accused named in the FIR. In
the afore background, FIR sought to be quashed came to be registered
against the petitioner Hardeep Singh, who is proprietor of HOPE having its
office at Jalandhar.
4. In nutshell, case of the petitioner as has been highlighted in the
petition and further canvassed by Dr. Bhupinder Gupta and Mr. Vivek
Thakur, Advocates, is that no case much less under Section 420 of IPC is
made out against the petitioner. While fairly admitting factum with regard
to complainants’ having approached the petitioner for providing Visa and
employment in UK, learned counsel for the petitioner argued that as per
::: Downloaded on – 10/04/2026 20:33:04 :::CIS
6 2026:HHC:8782
compromise, petitioner not only arranged for their travel in UK, but also
provided Visa. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that though
.
complainant and his family members were provided job as promised, but
since they were unable to adjust themselves in UK, they of their own came
back to India and as such, no case under the aforesaid provision of law is
made out against the petitioner. While referring to Section 420 of IPC,
of
learned counsel for the petitioner attempted to argue that there is nothing
on record to suggest that petitioner being proprietor of HOPE ever cheated
rt
or dishonestly induced the complainant to deliver any property to any
person or to make, alter or destroy any part of the valuable security, rather
petitioner not only arranged for travel but also provided Visa, but before
steps, if any, for providing PR could be taken by the petitioner through his
office, complainant and his family came back to India. He submitted that
there is no dishonest intention of the petitioner, which otherwise sine qua
non to hold the petitioner guilty of commission of offence under Section 420
of IPC. He submitted that even if, allegations made by the complainant are
accepted to be true and correct, petitioner cannot be said to have
committed offence of cheating for the reason that as per promise, all
services assured to be made available were provided at UK. Learned
counsel for the petitioner further argued that when averments contained in
the FIR nowhere discloses commission of offence, if any, punishable under
::: Downloaded on – 10/04/2026 20:33:04 :::CIS
7 2026:HHC:8782
Section 420 of IPC, continuation of proceedings, if any, pursuant to FIR
sought to be quashed in the instant proceedings, would amount to sheer
.
abuse of process of law, which this Court while exercising power under
Section 528 of the BNSS can always prevent by quashing the FIR. Learned
counsel for the petitioner further argued that material adduced on record
nowhere connects the petitioner with commission of offence, if any,
of
committed by him under Section 420 of IPC and as such, no fruitful
purpose would be served by putting the petitioner to ordeal of protracted
rt
trial, which is otherwise bound to fail on account of lack of evidence.
Lastly, learned counsel for the petitioner argued that otherwise, prior to
lodging of FIR, petitioner had entered into compromise with the accused
named in the FIR, whereby sum of Rs. 8.00 lakh, agreed to be paid by the
accused, was duly received by him and as such, there was no occasion, if
any, for him to continue with the criminal proceedings initiated at his
behest.
5. To the contrary, Mr. Rajan Kahol, learned Additional Advocate
General vehemently argued that bare perusal of allegation contained in the
FIR clearly discloses commission of offence under Section 420 of IPC. He
submitted that firstly, petitioner being proprietor of HOPE induced the
petitioner to shell out huge amount for providing Visa of UK and
::: Downloaded on – 10/04/2026 20:33:04 :::CIS
8 2026:HHC:8782
employment to the wife of the complainant and thereafter, left them alone
in other country, where there was none to take care of them. He submitted
.
that factum with regard to receipt of Rs. 27.00 lakh by the petitioner stands
duly established on record and as such, refund, if any, of Rs. 8.00 lakh by
the petitioner is of no consequence, rather such fact, if any, amounts to the
admission on the part of the petitioner that he dishonestly induced the
of
petitioner to shell out some money for providing Visa and job in UK, but
thereafter, neither job was provided nor steps, if any, were taken to provide
rt
PR to the complainant. Mr. Kahol, further submitted that otherwise also,
petitioner being proprietor of HOPE had no authority, whatsoever, to assure
complainant as well as similarly situate persons to provide job and PR in
foreign country, which otherwise could have been issued strictly in terms of
immigration laws of the country concerned.
6. Mr. Lokender Paul Thakur, learned counsel appearing for
respondent No.2 though categorically denied factum of compromise, if any,
arrived inter-se petitioner and complainant, but he admitted that even as
per compromise, sum of Rs. 8.00 lakh was agreed to be paid, however in
the instant case, one cheque amounting to Rs. 4.00 lakh was dishonoured.
He submitted that as per agreement placed on record by the petitioner, in
case cheque of Rs. 4.00 lakh was dishonoured, complainant was very much
::: Downloaded on – 10/04/2026 20:33:04 :::CIS
9 2026:HHC:8782
eligible/entitled to sum of Rs. 35.00 lakh. He submitted that since in the
case at hand, petitioner failed to abide by the terms and conditions of the
.
compromise, no illegality can be said to have been committed by police
authorities while lodging FIR sought to be quashed in the instant
proceedings. He also submitted that bare perusal of allegations contained
in the FIR sought to be quashed clearly suggests that case under Section
of
420 of IPC is made out against the petitioner.
7. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone
8.
rt
through the records of the case.
Before ascertaining the genuineness and correctness of the
submissions and counter submissions having been made by the learned
counsel for the parties vis-Ã -vis prayer made in the instant petition, this
Court deems it necessary to discuss/elaborate the scope and competence of
this Court to quash the criminal proceedings while exercising power under
Section 482 of Cr.PC (now Section 528 of BNSS).
9. Hon’ble Apex Court in judgment titled State of Haryana and
others vs. Bhajan Lal and others, 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335 has laid
down several principles, which govern the exercise of jurisdiction of High
Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C (now Section 528 of BNSS). Before
pronouncement of aforesaid judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Apex Court,
::: Downloaded on – 10/04/2026 20:33:04 :::CIS
10 2026:HHC:8782
a three-Judge Bench of Hon’ble Court in State of Karnataka vs. L.
Muniswamy and others, 1977 (2) SCC 699, held that the High Court is
.
entitled to quash a proceeding, if it comes to the conclusion that allowing
the proceeding to continue would be an abuse of the process of the Court or
that the ends of justice require that the proceeding ought to be quashed.
10. Subsequently, Hon’ble Apex Court in Bhajan Lal (supra), has
of
elaborately considered the scope and ambit of Section 482 Cr.P.C.
Subsequently, Hon’ble Apex Court in Vineet Kumar and Ors. v. State of
rt
U.P. and Anr., while considering the scope of interference under Sections
397 Cr.PC and 482 Cr.PC, by the High Courts, has held that High Court is
entitled to quash a proceeding, if it comes to the conclusion that allowing
the proceeding to continue would be an abuse of the process of the Court or
that the ends of justice require that the proceedings ought to quashed. The
Hon’ble Apex Court has further held that the saving of the High Court’s
inherent powers, both in civil and criminal matters, is designed to achieve a
salutary public purpose i.e. a court proceeding ought not to be permitted to
degenerate into a weapon of harassment or persecution. In the aforesaid
case, the Hon’ble Apex Court taking note of seven categories, where power
can be exercised under Section 482 Cr.PC, as enumerated in Bhajan Lal
(supra), i.e. where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with
::: Downloaded on – 10/04/2026 20:33:04 :::CIS
11 2026:HHC:8782
malafides 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, quashed the proceedings.
11. Hon’ble Apex Court in Prashant Bharti v. State (NCT of
Delhi), (2013) 9 SCC 293, while drawing strength from its earlier
judgment titled as Rajiv Thapar and Ors v. Madan Lal Kapoor, (2013) 3
of
SCC 330, has reiterated that High Court has inherent power under Section
482 Cr.PC. (now Section 528 of BNSS), to quash the initiation of the
rt
prosecution against an accused, at the stage of issuing process, or at the
stage of committal, or even at the stage of framing of charge, but such
power must always be used with caution, care and circumspection. While
invoking its inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. (now
Section 528 of BNSS), the High Court has to be fully satisfied that the
material produced by the accused is such, that would lead to the
conclusion, that his/their defence is based on sound, reasonable, and
indubitable facts and the material adduced on record itself overrules the
veracity of the allegations contained in the accusations levelled by the
prosecution/complainant. The material relied upon by the accused should
be such, as would persuade a reasonable person to dismiss and condemn
the actual basis of the accusations as false. In such a situation, the judicial
::: Downloaded on – 10/04/2026 20:33:04 :::CIS
12 2026:HHC:8782
conscience of the High Court would persuade it to exercise its power under
Section 528 of BNSS to quash such criminal proceedings, for that would
.
prevent abuse of process of the court, and secure the ends of justice.
12. Hon’ble Apex Court in Asmathunnisa v. State of A.P. (2011)
11 SCC 259, has held as under:
“12. This Court, in a number of cases, has laid down the scope and
of
ambit of the High Court’s power under section 482 of the Code of
Criminal Procedure. Inherent power under section 482 Cr.P.C.
though wide have to be exercised sparingly, carefully and with great
caution and only when such exercise is justified 9 by the tests
rt
specifically laid down in this section itself. Authority of the court
exists for the advancement of justice. If any abuse of the process
leading to injustice is brought to the notice of the court, then the
Court would be justified in preventing injustice by invoking inherent
powers in absence of specific provisions in the Statute.
13. The law has been crystallized more than half a century ago in the
case of R.P. Kapur v. State of Punjab AIR 1960 SC 866 wherein this
Court has summarized some categories of cases where inherent
power can and should be exercised to quash the proceedings. This
Court summarized the following three broad categories where the
High Court would be justified in exercise of its powers under section
482:
(i) where it manifestly appears that there is a legal bar against
the institution or continuance of the proceedings;
(ii) where the allegations in the first information report or
complaint taken at their face value and accepted in their
entirety do not constitute the offence alleged;
::: Downloaded on – 10/04/2026 20:33:04 :::CIS
13 2026:HHC:8782
(iii) where the allegations constitute an offence but there is no
legal evidence adduced or the evidence adduced clearly or
manifestly fails to prove the charge.”
.
14.In Smt. Nagawwa v. Veeranna Shivalingappa Konjalgi and Others
(1976) 3 SCC 736, according to the court, the process against the
accused can be quashed or set aside :
“(1) where the allegations made in the complaint or the
statements of the witnesses recorded in support of the same
taken at their face value make out absolutely no case againstof
the accused or the complaint does not disclose the essential
ingredients of an offence which is alleged against the accused;
(2) where the allegations made in the complaint are patently
rt
absurd and inherently improbable so that no 10 prudent person
can ever reach a conclusion that there is sufficient ground forproceeding against the accused;
(3) where the discretion exercised by the Magistrate in issuing
process is capricious and arbitrary having been based either onno evidence or on materials which are wholly irrelevant or
inadmissible; and
(4) where the complaint suffers from fundamental legal defects,such as, want of sanction, or absence of a complaint by legally
competent authority and the like”.
15. This court in State of Karnataka v. L. Muniswamy & Others
(1977) 2 SCC 699, observed that the wholesome power under section
482 Cr.P.C. entitles the High Court to quash a proceeding when it
comes to the conclusion that allowing the proceedings to continue
would be an abuse of the process of the court or that the ends of
justice requires that the proceedings ought to be quashed. The High
Courts have been invested with inherent powers, both in civil and
criminal matters, to achieve a salutary public purpose. A Court
::: Downloaded on – 10/04/2026 20:33:04 :::CIS
14 2026:HHC:8782
proceeding ought not to be permitted to degenerate into a weapon of
harassment or persecution. In this case, the court observed that ends
of justice are higher than the ends of mere law though justice must
.
be administered according to laws made by the Legislature. This case
has been followed in a large number of subsequent cases of this
court and other courts.”
13. Hon’ble Apex Court in Asmathunnisa (supra) has categorically
held that where discretion exercised by the Magistrate in issuing process is
of
capricious and arbitrary having been based either on no evidence or on
materials which are wholly irrelevant or inadmissible; and where the
rt
complaint suffers from fundamental legal defects, such as, want of
sanction, or absence of a complaint by legally competent authority and the
like, High Court would be justified in exercise of its powers under Section
482 CrPC (now Section 528 of BNSS).
14. From the bare perusal of aforesaid exposition of law, it is quite
apparent that while exercising its inherent power under Section 528 of
BNSS, High Court can proceed to quash the proceedings, if it comes to the
conclusion that allowing the proceedings to continue would be an abuse of
process of the law.
15. Now being guided by the aforesaid law laid down by the Hon’ble
Apex Court from time to time, this court would make an endeavour to find
out “whether FIR sought to be quashed discloses offence, if any, punishable
::: Downloaded on – 10/04/2026 20:33:04 :::CIS
15 2026:HHC:8782
under the aforesaid provision of law and evidentiary material collected on
record by the prosecution is sufficient to connect the accused named in the
.
FIR with the alleged commission of offence or not?
16. Having perused pleadings as well as other material adduced on
record by the respective parties, this Court is not persuaded to agree with
learned counsel for the petitioner that no case much less under Section 420
of
of the IPC is made out against the petitioner. At this stage, it would be apt
to take note of Section 420 of IPC, which reads as under:
rt
“420. Cheating and dishonestly inducing delivery of property.-
Whoever cheats and thereby dishonestly induces the person deceived
to deliver any property to any person, or to make, alter or destroy the
whole or any part of a valuable security, or anything which is signed
or sealed, and which is capable of being converted into a valuable
security, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description
for a term which may extend to seven years, and shall also be liable
to fine.”
17. As per aforesaid provision of law, whoever cheats and thereby
dishonestly induces the person deceived to deliver any property to any
person or to make, alter or destroy the whole or any party of a valuable
security, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a
term which may extend to seven years and shall also be liable to fine. To
invoke aforesaid provision of law, prosecution is always under obligation to
::: Downloaded on – 10/04/2026 20:33:04 :::CIS
16 2026:HHC:8782
prove that there was a dishonest intention of the person charged with
aforesaid provision of law from the very beginning, which is sine qua non to
.
hold the accused guilty for commission of the said offence (Joseph
Salvaraj v. State of Gujarat, 2011 (7) SCC 59).
18. Offence of cheating is established when the accused thereby
induced that person to deliver any property or to do or to omit to do
of
something which he would otherwise not have done or omitted. (Mahadeo
Prasad v. State of Bengal (AIR 1954 SC 724).
19.
rt
At this stage, it would be also apt to take note of 415 of IPC,
which defines cheating, which reads as under:
“415 Cheating- 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”.”
20. As per aforesaid provision of law, 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
::: Downloaded on – 10/04/2026 20:33:04 :::CIS
17 2026:HHC:8782
omit to do anything which he would not do or omit if he were not so
deceived shall be deemed to have committed cheating.
.
21. If the allegations contained in the FIR are read in entirety, it
cannot be said that no case is made out against the petitioner. Admittedly,
petitioner, who is proprietor of HOPE, issued advertisement claiming
therein that HOPE provides services of Visa and employment in UK. Taking
of
note of aforesaid advertisement, complainant telephonically contacted
representative of the company, who after having inquired about the
rt
qualification of complainant and his family members, assured that HOPE
will arrange for the work permit and job to Ms. Sonali Thakur, wife of the
complainant, as skilled worker. Representative of the company also assured
that in order to get PR in UK, complainant will be inducted as partner in
one of their ventures in UK to the extent of 10% share of the first year and
after one year, his share will be raised to 25%. Representative of the
company also promised that complainant and his family members will get
PR status after three years. After being assured of afore services by
representative of the accused Company, Mr. Gagandeep Singh asked for
payment of total consideration of Rs. 30.00 lakh, which was subsequently
reduced to Rs. 27.00 lakh after negotiations. Admittedly, in the case at
hand, afore sum was transferred in the G-Pay account of Hardeep Singh,
::: Downloaded on – 10/04/2026 20:33:04 :::CIS
18 2026:HHC:8782
Managing Director of HOPE as well as other persons. No doubt, at the first
instance, accused named in the FIR arranged for Air Tickets as well as
.
Visa, but for that purpose, sum of Rs. 1,50,000/- plus Rs. 2,40,000/- was
taken from the complainant. Similarly, foreign currency worth Rs.
5,00,000/- was also provided in lieu of Rs. 5,39,900/-. Though
complainant along with his family reached London on 13.9.2023, but none
of
came there to receive them, as a result of which, he had to make his own
arrangements. Though on 15.9.2023, representative of the company asked
rt
them to go to Luton i.e. another town at a distance of one hour journey
from London, but even at that station, none came to meet them, due to
which, he was compelled to live in a Gurudwara for few days. Though
petitioner told the complainant to collect the BRP of Ms. Sonali Thakur
from post office at Luton and report for job, but fact remains that here was
no vacancy. Since none of the afore services promised to the complainant
were ever provided, he along with family had no option but to return to
India on 30.9.2023 that too by spending Rs. 95,000/- for booking flight
ticket. In addition to Rs 27.00 lakh, which was deposited in the bank
account of the accused, complainant was made to spend Rs. 2,50,000/-
from his own pocket for taxi, hotel and other miscellaneous expenses.
::: Downloaded on – 10/04/2026 20:33:04 :::CIS
19 2026:HHC:8782
22. It is apparent that petitioner being proprietor of HOPE
fraudulently and dishonestly, induced the complainant to deposit huge
.
money with the assurance that he shall arrange job for his wife at London
and would also arrange for study Visa to his daughter, but as has been
taken note herein above, none of the services as agreed to be provided, were
provided to the complainant.
of
23. Though at this stage, learned counsel for the petitioner
attempted to argue that there is nothing on record to prove that petitioner
rt
had dishonest intention from the very beginning which is otherwise sine
qua non to hold the petitioner guilty of commission of offence, but this
Court is not inclined to accept the aforesaid submission of the learned
counsel for the petitioner, for the reason that from day one, petitioner was
aware of the fact that he being immigration agent can only arrange for Visa
as well as Air Tickets, but yet he fraudulently with dishonest intention
induced the petitioner to shell out huge money with an assurance that he
shall not only provide Visa and Air Tickets, but would also provide job and
PR in UK. Offence of cheating is established when the accused thereby
induced a person to deliver any property or to do or to omit to do something
which he would otherwise not have done or omitted. In the case at hand,
admittedly, offence of cheating is established when petitioner fraudulently
::: Downloaded on – 10/04/2026 20:33:04 :::CIS
20 2026:HHC:8782
induced the complainant and his family to deliver huge amount or to do
something which otherwise accused would not have done on account of his
.
not authorized to do such act.
24. No doubt, while exercising power under Section 528 of the
BNSS, this Court can proceed to quash FIR if it prima-facie does not
disclose offence person seeking quashment is charged with, but in this
of
case, bare reading of contents of FIR discloses prima-facie case under
Section 420 of IPC against the petitioner.
25.
rt
Whether petitioner after his having received money as detailed
herein above had provided adequate services or he had an authority to
make such tall claims are the questions to be decided in totality of evidence
led on record by the prosecution, but certainly, it is not a case, where this
Court while exercising power under Section 528 of BNSS can proceed to
quash the FIR.
26. There is another aspect of the matter that as per own case of
the accused, complainant after his having lodged complaint with police
entered into compromise, whereby both the parties resolved to settle their
dispute amicably. In terms of the compromise, accused agreed to pay Rs
8.00 lakh to the petitioner (Annexure P-1) by way of two cheques dated
16.3.2024 and 13.4.2024 amounting to Rs. 4.00 lakh each. As per afore
::: Downloaded on – 10/04/2026 20:33:04 :::CIS
21 2026:HHC:8782
agreement, in case cheques are dishonoured, complainant Rahul Kumar
would be entitled to Rs. 35.00 lakh and in case, cheques are honoured and
.
sum of Rs. 8.00 lakh is received by the complainant, he shall not file any
complaint. Admittedly, in the case at hand, one cheque of Rs. 4.00 lakh
was encashed, however another cheque of Rs. 4.00 lakh was dishonoured,
as a result of which, complainant instituted proceedings under Section 138
of
of the Negotiable Instruments Act, which is pending adjudication before the
competent authority. Though at this stage, learned counsel for the
rt
petitioner attempted to argue that sum of Rs. 8.00 lakh was subsequently
paid to the petitioner by various transactions. To substantiate his
aforesaid claim, he invited attention of this court to Annexure P3 (Colly.),
which suggests that amount of Rs. 4.00 lakh was transferred, but
“whether such amount was in lieu of cheque issued towards amicable
settlement is a question to be decided by the court below in totality of
evidence?”. Once petitioner himself agreed that in case cheque of Rs.4.00
lakh is dishonoured, complainant would be entitled to Rs. 35.00 lakh.
Factum of compromise, if any, arrived inter-se petitioner as well as
complainant is of no consequence as far as the instant proceedings are
concerned. Moreover, this court is of the view that by pleading aforesaid
facts with regard to compromise, petitioner has virtually admitted factum of
his having received money as has been claimed to be deposited by the
::: Downloaded on – 10/04/2026 20:33:04 :::CIS
22 2026:HHC:8782
petitioner. Had petitioner provided adequate services as were promised to
be provided, there was no occasion, if any, for him to offer Rs. 8.00 lakh to
.
the complainant. It appears that he with a view to buy peace and get rid of
criminal proceedings lodged at the behest of the petitioner, came forward to
pay Rs. 8.00 lakh, but since one cheque issued by him was dishonoured,
complainant became entitled to claim Rs. 35.00 lakh as has been
of
mentioned in the agreement (Annexure P-1).
27. Having scanned the pleadings as well as other material
rt
adduced on record by the respective parties, this Court is not persuaded to
agree with learned counsel for the petitioner that FIR sought to be quashed
if permitted to sustain would amount to abuse of process of law, rather this
court is of the view that FIR sought to be quashed prima-facie discloses
offence under Section 420 of IPC alleged to be committed by the petitioner.
28. At this cost of repetition, it is reiterated that whether in lieu of
money deposited by the complainant adequate services were provided or
not? Or whether in terms of compromise, entire money was paid or not?,
are the questions to be decided by the court below in totality of evidence,
but certainly, those being disputed facts cannot be gone into instant
proceedings initiated by the petitioner for quashing of FIR.
::: Downloaded on – 10/04/2026 20:33:04 :::CIS
23 2026:HHC:8782
29. Consequently, in view of the detailed discussion made herein
above as well as law taken into consideration, this court is of the view that
.
this case is not a fit case where power under Section 528 of BNSS can be
exercised to quash the FIR. As such, present petition is dismissed being
devoid of any merit. Any observations made hereinabove shall not be
construed to be a reflection on the merits of the case and shall remain
of
confined to the disposal of this case alone. All pending applications shall
stand disposed of accordingly.
March 24, 2026
(manjit)
rt (Sandeep Sharma),
Judge
::: Downloaded on - 10/04/2026 20:33:04 :::CIS