[Cites 7, Cited by 0]

Punjab-Haryana High Court

Rajesh Gupta vs State Of Haryana And Another on 24 March, 2026

CRM-M--42054-2025                                                          1

        IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
                       CHANDIGARH

101-2                                              CRM-M-42054-2025


Rajesh Gupta
                                                          ....Petitioner
                                         V/s
State of Haryana and others
                                                          ....Respondents
Date of decision: 24.03.2026
Date of Uploading : 24.03.2026

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUMEET GOEL

Present:    Mr. Rajiv Kumar Saini, Advocate for the petitioner
            (through Video Conference).
            Ms. Mahima Yashpal Singla, Senior DAG Haryana.
            Mr. Dhananjay Singh, Advocate and
            Ms. Chetan Gupta, Advocate
                                  ocate for respondent Nos.2 to 4.
                                        *****
SUMEET GOEL,
       GOEL J. (Oral)

1. The present petition has been preferred by the petitioner

Section 528 of Bhartiya Nyaya Surksha Sanhita (BNSS) seeking quashing

of FIR No.330 dated 22.11.2024 (hereinafter to be referred as the impugned

FIR) registered under Sections 406, 420, 467, 468 of IPC at Police Station

Urban Estate, Hisar and all consequential proceedings arising therefrom on

the basis of an alleged compromise stated to have been effected between the

parties.

2. The gravamen of the FIR is that the petitioner, by falsely

representing himself as capable of arranging overseas work visas, representing

dishonestly induced the complainant to part with a substantial amount amount.. It

has been alleged in the FIR that the petitioner has gained the trust of the

1 of 6

complainant and his family by staying in their PG and claiming that he

could arrange work visas for the foreign countries. Believing his words,, the

complainant had paid a total amount of about ₹10.85 10.85 lakh to send his son

abroad. It has been further alleged that aafter receiving the money, the

petitioner had failed to arrange the promised visa. Thereafter, the petitioner

first gave excuses and later provided a visa document which turned out to

be fake when verified. When the complainant demanded the money back,

the petitioner admitted his mistake and return returned ed only a small portion of the

amount and promised to repay the rest. However, he neither returned the

remaining ₹10.00 lacs nor arranged any genuine visa. Instead, he issued

cheques for repayment but upon presentation those cheques were

dishonoured. On these hese set of allegations, the FIR in question came to be

registered and investigation ensued.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner iterated that the present

petition has been filed under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik

Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 seeking quashing of the FIR in question on the

basis of a compromise arrived at between the petitioner and respondent

No.2 - complainant. Learned counsel has further iterated that with the

intervention of respectable persons and family members, the matter has

been amicably settled between the parties and the entire dispute, which was

purely personal in nature, has been resolved. It has been further submitted

that a part of the amountt out of the settled sum i.e. Rs.2.00 lacs has already

been paid to the complainant and the remaining amount was agreed to be

paid before 22.12.2025.

22.12.2025. Learned counsel has further submitted that in view

of the compromise, respondent Nos.

No 2 to 4 no longer wishes hes to pursue the

2 of 6

criminal proceedings and hence the continuation of the criminal

proceedings would amount to abuse of the process of law and would serve

no useful purpose. To buttress his arguments, reliance has been placed on

the judgments of the titled as Kulwinder Singh and others vs. State of

Punjab and another, 2007 (3) RCR (Criminal) 1052 1052; Madan Mohan

Abbot vs. State of Punjab, (2008) 4 SCC 582 582; and Balbir Singh and

another vs. State of Punjab and another, 2011 (5) RCR (Criminal) 713 713,, to

contend that this Court, in exercise of its inherent powers, can quash

criminal proceedings on the basis of compromise even in non-

non

compoundable offences, in order to secure the ends of justice and to

prevent abuse of the process of the Court. On the strength of these

submissions, learned counsel has prayed that the FIR and all subsequent

proceedings arising therefrom be quashed on the basis of the compromise

between the parties.

4. Learned State counsel has opposed the prayer made by the

petitioner seeking quashing of the FIR in question question. Learned State counsel

has iterated that the petitioner as a part of well well-planned planned conspiracy to evade

his liability of Rs.10.00 lacs created false evidence by giving bogus

cheques and the offences alleged against the petitioner are un under der Sections

420 and 406 IPC which involve allegations of cheating and criminal breach

of trust and the same cannot be quashed merely on the basis of an

unverified compromise. Accordingly, the dismissal of the petition in hand

is entreated for.

5. Learnedd counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No Nos. 2 to 4

has iterated that the petitioner has not adhered to the earlier compromise

3 of 6

arrived at between the parties and has deliberately failed to honour the

terms and conditions thereof. It has been further submitted bmitted that despite

having undertaken before this Court to make the payment in terms of the

settlement, the petitioner has neither paid the agreed amount nor shown any

bona fide intention to comply with the same. It has been further contended

that the conduct conduct of the petitioner clearly reflects that the compromise was

entered into only with a view to secure interim protection from this Court

and not with any genuine intent to resolve the dispute. Furthermore, even

after sufficient opportunities have been granted, ranted, the petitioner has failed to

make any substantial payment.

payment It has been further argued that even after

the mediation proceedings, no amount has been paid and the petitioner has

defaulted on his own undertaking which clearly shows the mala fide

intention.

ention. On the strength of these submissions, the dismissal of the

petition in hand is prayed for.

6. I have heard learned counsel for the rival parties and have

perused the available record.

7. Indubitably, the wide plenary powers of this Court under its

inherent jurisdiction are saved by virtue of Section 528 BNSS, 2023, which

except for self-imposed self imposed restrain(s), are not bound by any restriction or

limitation. However, the wider the powers are, more is the duty upon the

Courts to invoke extraordinary inherent jurisdiction with utmost

circumspection. It is the statutory right as well as the duty of the Police to

investigate into a cognizable offence. Ergo, where the allegations, prima

facie, disclose the commission of cognizable offence, this Court mus mustt act

with deference while considering a plea for quashing of the FIR. It is not

4 of 6

apropos for this Court to embark upon an enquiry as to the reliability or

genuineness or otherwise of the allegations, particularly, when the case is

at the stage of investigation, investig lest, it may tantamount to usurping the

jurisdiction of an authority, statutorily vested with the powers to conduct

investigation. Save in exceptional cases, where the conduct of investigation

itself is a miscarriage of justice, such as where allega allegations, prima facie, do

not disclose commission of a cognizable offence, interference by this

Court, under the inherent jurisdiction is justified.

8. It is evident that the parties ha have earlier arrived at a

compromise and, on the basis of the said settlem settlement, ent, the petitioner has ha

sought indulgence of this Court. The petitioner was granted sufficient

opportunities and adequate time to comply with the terms of the

compromise particularly with regard to payment of the agreed amount to

the complainant. However, despite repeated opportunities and the

indulgence shown by this Court, the petitioner has failed to adhere to the

terms of the compromise.

compromise. Admittedly, the petitioner has not made the

agreed payment nor has he shown any sincere effort or bona fide intention

to honour the settlement. In the considered opinion of this Court, tthe he

conduct of the petitioner clearly reflects that the compromise was not acted

upon in its true spirit and was merely used as a means to seek favourable

orders from this Court. Such conduct conduct amounts to misuse of the process of

law. It is well settled that when a party fails to comply with the terms of a

compromise despite being granted sufficient opportunities, such party

cannot be permitted to seek further indulgence from the Court. The

discretionary iscretionary jurisdiction of this Court cannot be exercised in favour of a

5 of 6

litigant who has failed to honour his own undertaking. Moreover, the issues

raised on behalf of the petitioner in the instant quashing petition are

essentially questions of fact which which can be adjudicated upon after due

investigation and appraisal of evidence and, thus thus, the present petition is

pre-mature.

mature. Keeping in view the entirety of the facts and circumstances of

the present case, this Court is of the considered view that no case for f

quashing of instant FIR is made out.

9. As an upshot of above-said said rumination, it is directed as

follows:

(i) The petition; seeking quashing of FIR in question and all

consequential proceedings arising therefrom; is dismissed.

(ii) Any observations made and/or submissions noted hereinabove

shall not have any effect on the merits of the case and the trial Court shall

proceed further, in accordance with law, without being influenced with this

order.