Sumesh Sharma Alias Somesh Sharma vs State Of Punjab And Anr

CRM-M-48560-2024 (O&M) -:1:-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
(121)
CRM-M-48560-2024 (O&M)
Date of Decision: 01.09.2026
Sumesh Sharma @ Somesh Sharma
… Petitioner
Versus
State of Punjab and Another
... Respondents
-.-
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIRINDER AGGARWAL
Present:- Mr. Sumesh Sharma, Petitioner
(through Video Conferencing).
Mr. Jasjit Singh Rattu, DAG, Punjab.
None for respondent No.2.
-.-
VIRINDER AGGARWAL , J . (Oral)
1. Petition under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha
 
Sanhita, 2023, seeking quashing of FIR No. 79 dated 2011, registered at
Police Station Bhawanigarh, District Sangrur, Punjab, under Sections 420
and 120-B IPC, 1860 (Annexure P-1), along with consequential quashing
of the charge-sheet (Annexure P-2), the charges framed pursuant thereto,
and order dated 14.06.2023 passed by the learned ACJM, Sangrur, in Case
No. CHI/296/2023 (Annexure P-3).
1.1.   Further prayer is made for staying the operation and further
proceedings in Case No. CHI/296/2023, pending before the learned Court
of CJM, Sangrur, during the pendency of the present petition.
GAURAV SOROT
2026.09.01 16:34
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

CRM-M-48560-2024 (O&M) -:2:-
2. The FIR came to be registered on the basis of an application
 
submitted by Ravinder Singh, alleging that he had been induced by
Somesh Sharma, resident of Mohali, who represented that he had
extensive contacts with officials at the Embassy in Delhi and could secure
a safe and guaranteed educational visa for his son, Gurpreet Singh, for the
United Kingdom, followed by assured employment and settlement there. It
was further alleged that Somesh Sharma represented Prem Kathuria,
proprietor of M/s Pacific Overseas Consultants, Delhi, as a highly
influential person having substantial connections with the concerned
authorities, and assured that, upon payment of 4.70 lakh ₹ , the requisite
visa and subsequent employment for Gurpreet Singh would be arranged.
2.1. It was alleged that Somesh Sharma visited the complainant's
residence in January 2011 and received 4.70 lakh on the aforesaid
₹
assurances, but did not issue any receipt, stating that the same would be
provided by Prem Kathuria upon his return from Delhi. Thereafter, despite
repeated visits to the office of the accused at Mohali, the complainant was
allegedly given repeated assurances that the visa process was underway. It
was further alleged that certain blank papers, documents and agreements
were got signed from the complainant on the pretext of processing the visa
application, and that representations were also made regarding arranging
financial documents, including bank statements and income-tax returns,
for submission before the Embassy.
2.2. The complainant further alleged that, upon becoming
suspicious of the conduct of the accused and demanding return of his
documents, passport and money, Somesh Sharma initially assured
GAURAV SOROT
2026.09.01 16:34
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

CRM-M-48560-2024 (O&M) -:3:-
repayment and subsequently issued a cheque for 1.70 lakh , promising to
₹
pay the balance 3 lakh ₹ shortly. The said cheque was allegedly
dishonoured for want of sufficient funds. It was further alleged that, upon
demanding repayment and threatening legal action, the complainant was
threatened with serious consequences and was advised to forgo the
amount. The complainant also alleged that Somesh Sharma had similarly
induced other persons by making false assurances regarding visas and
overseas settlement and had thereafter become untraceable.
2.3. On these allegations, the complainant asserted that the accused
had dishonestly induced him to part with his hard-earned money on false
representations, retained the amount without fulfilling the promised
services, and had also obtained his blank signed documents and other
papers. He accordingly sought recovery of his documents and initiation of
appropriate criminal action against Somesh Sharma and Prem Kathuria in
accordance with law.
3. The petitioner, appearing in person, submits that the impugned
FIR is a product of mala fides and an abuse of the process of law, arising
from a commercial/immigration dispute which was subsequently given a
criminal colour. It is contended that the entire alleged amount of 4.70
₹
lakhs stood substantially repaid, with 3.00 lakhs having been paid in cash ₹
and the balance of 1.70 lakhs through cheque, and the relevant ₹
documents had also been returned to the complainant much prior to
registration of the FIR. The contemporaneous material, including the
statement recorded before the Economic Offences Wing and the reports
GAURAV SOROT
2026.09.01 16:34
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

CRM-M-48560-2024 (O&M) -:4:-
placed before the NHRC, materially contradict the subsequent prosecution
version.
3.1. It is further submitted that the petitioner himself had raised
complaints against the persons allegedly responsible for the underlying
fraudulent activities and had repeatedly approached the police, NHRC and
other authorities seeking protection and redressal. The petitioner also
places reliance upon the orders/proceedings of the NHRC and the Hon’ble
Supreme Court to demonstrate the persistent procedural irregularities,
threats and harassment allegedly suffered by him. Despite the passage of
several years, the complainant and material witnesses have repeatedly
failed to appear before the Trial Court, even after coercive processes were
issued, rendering the continuation of the proceedings oppressive and futile.
3.2. The petitioner submits that he has already suffered
incarceration, prolonged prosecution and repeated appearances before the
Trial Court for more than a decade, whereas the foundational witnesses
have not come forward to substantiate the allegations. In these peculiar
circumstances, continuation of the criminal proceedings would serve no
legitimate prosecutorial purpose and would amount to permitting the
criminal process to become an instrument of harassment. Reliance is
placed upon V. Ganesan vs. State represented by the Sub-Inspector of
Police and Others, AIR 2026 SC 1547; Parag Kishore Satoskar and
Others vs. State of Jharkhand and Another, 2026 INSC 846; Vesa
Holdings Pvt. Ltd. vs. State of Kerala, AIR 2015 SCW 2245; Pradeep
Kumar Kesarwani vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and Another, 2025 SCC
GAURAV SOROT
2026.09.01 16:34
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

CRM-M-48560-2024 (O&M) -:5:-
OnLine SC 1947; and Anukul Singh Uttar Pradesh vs. State of Uttar
Pradesh, 2025 INSC 1153 .
3.3. On the cumulative effect of the aforesaid circumstances, the
petitioner submits that the present case falls within the exceptional
parameters warranting interference under the inherent jurisdiction of this
Court, and accordingly prays that FIR No. 79 of 2011, the consequential
charge-sheet, the order framing charges dated 14.06.2023 and all
subsequent proceedings arising therefrom be quashed and petition be
allowed.
4.   Respondent No.2, despite due service, chose not to appear and
contest the present proceedings.
4.1. Learned State counsel, has vehemently opposed the petition
and submitted that the present FIR was registered against the petitioner-
Sumesh Sharma and co-accused Prem Kathuria on the basis of the
complaint submitted by Ravinder Singh. It is contended that, during
investigation, co-accused Prem Kathuria was found innocent; however, the
role of the petitioner was duly substantiated, as he admittedly received an
amount of 4,70,000/- ₹ from the complainant, out of which 3,00,000/- ₹
was subsequently returned to Gurpreet Singh, son of the complainant,
whereas cheque No. 699082 for the remaining 1,70,000/- ₹ , drawn on SBI
account No. 30581663553, was not encashed. It is, therefore, argued that
the petitioner, despite having received the aforesaid amount for facilitating
the foreign education and settlement of Gurpreet Singh, neither arranged
for his travel abroad nor returned the entire amount or the documents
GAURAV SOROT
2026.09.01 16:34
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

CRM-M-48560-2024 (O&M) -:6:-
entrusted to him, thereby disclosing his specific role in the commission of
the alleged offence. Respondent No.2 chose not to appear to contest.
4.1. It is further submitted that, upon completion of investigation,
the police presented the challan before the learned Trial Court, which
thereafter took cognizance and framed the charge under Section 420 IPC
vide order dated 14.06.2023 in Case No. CHI/296/2023. Learned State
counsel submits that the registration of the FIR, presentation of the challan
and framing of charge were all in accordance with law and that no
illegality, perversity or procedural irregularity has been demonstrated by
the petitioner warranting exercise of the inherent jurisdiction of this Court.
It is contended that the allegations disclose a prima facie cognizable
offence and the disputed factual questions, including the receipt,
repayment and alleged non-return of the remaining amount and
documents, are matters for adjudication upon appreciation of evidence at
trial and cannot appropriately be determined in proceedings for quashing.
4.2. Accordingly, learned State counsel submits that the present
petition is devoid of merit and that the petitioner has failed to make out
any exceptional circumstance warranting interference with the criminal
proceedings at this stage. Having regard to the nature and gravity of the
allegations and the material collected during investigation, dismissal of the
petition is, therefore, prayed for.
5. The petitioner has filed a rejoinder to the reply submitted by
the respondents, wherein the averments and submissions made in the
petition have been reiterated and reaffirmed. The petitioner has
specifically controverted and denied the assertions and contentions raised
GAURAV SOROT
2026.09.01 16:34
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

CRM-M-48560-2024 (O&M) -:7:-
by the respondents, submitting that the same are misconceived, factually
untenable and contrary to the material available on record. It is further
asserted that the reply filed by the respondents does not satisfactorily rebut
the grounds urged in the petition or dislodge the circumstances relied upon
by the petitioner in support of the relief sought. The petitioner has
accordingly maintained that the impugned proceedings suffer from the
infirmities highlighted in the petition and, therefore, reiterated his prayer
for allowing the present petition and granting the reliefs sought therein.
6. Having heard petitioner in person and learned State counsel
and after going through the paper-book with their able assistance and upon
a careful and holistic consideration of the allegations contained in the FIR,
read conjointly with the material collected during the course of
investigation, this Court is of the considered prima facie view that the
impugned FIR cannot be said to be bereft of allegations disclosing the
commission of cognizable offences. Equally, the allegations, if taken at
their face value and accepted in their entirety at this stage, cannot be said
to be incapable of constituting the essential ingredients of the offences
alleged, nor can they be characterised as so patently absurd, inherently
improbable, inherently lacking in credibility or manifestly frivolous as to
warrant exercise of the extraordinary and inherent jurisdiction of this
Court for stifling the criminal proceedings at their inception.
6.1. The present case, therefore, does not fall within any of the
well-recognised categories in which the inherent jurisdiction may
legitimately be invoked to interdict or quash criminal proceedings. The
disputed factual assertions, the evidentiary worth of the material collected
GAURAV SOROT
2026.09.01 16:34
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

CRM-M-48560-2024 (O&M) -:8:-
during investigation and the respective defences of the parties are matters
which require appropriate examination in accordance with law and cannot
be subjected to a meticulous adjudication in proceedings invoking inherent
jurisdiction. The parameters governing such jurisdiction stand
authoritatively delineated by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in State of
Haryana and Others vs. Ch. Bhajan Lal and Others, 1991 (1) RCR
(Criminal) 383 . The present case, upon an application of the said
principles, does not disclose any exceptional circumstance warranting
interference by this Court. The relevant observations are reproduced
hereunder:-
“107. 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 482 of the Code which 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.
GAURAV SOROT
2026.09.01 16:34
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

CRM-M-48560-2024 (O&M) -:9:-
2. Where the allegations in the First Information Report and
other materials, if any, accompanying the F.I.R. 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
complaint 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 F.I.R. 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 F.I.R. 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 mala
fide and/or where the proceeding is maliciously instituted
with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the
GAURAV SOROT
2026.09.01 16:34
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

CRM-M-48560-2024 (O&M) -:10:-
accused and with a view to spite him due to private and
personal grudge.
108. 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 F.I.R. 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.”
7. In M/s Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. vs. State of
Maharashtra (2021) 19 SCC 401 , a Three-Judge Bench of the Hon'ble
Supreme Court authoritatively delineated the scope and ambit of the
inherent jurisdiction of the High Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C.
Reaffirming the settled legal position, the Court held that the power to
quash criminal proceedings is extraordinary in nature and is to be
exercised sparingly, with great circumspection, and only in exceptional
cases, the expression " rarest of rare " being employed in a context distinct
from that governing the imposition of capital punishment.
7.1. The Hon'ble Supreme Court further held that, while exercising
jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing an FIR or criminal
proceedings, the High Court is not expected to enter into disputed
questions of fact or adjudicate upon the correctness, reliability or
genuineness of the allegations levelled in the FIR or complaint. At such
stage, the Court cannot examine the defence available to the accused,
undertake a meticulous appreciation of evidence, or conduct a mini-trial.
Interference would be justified only where the case unmistakably falls
GAURAV SOROT
2026.09.01 16:34
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

CRM-M-48560-2024 (O&M) -:11:-
within the well-recognised parameters governing the exercise of inherent
jurisdiction, particularly those enunciated in R.P. Kapur vs. State of
Punjab AIR 1960 SC 866 and State of Haryana and Others vs. Bhajan
Lal (supra).
8. Tested on the touchstone of the aforesaid settled principles, the
present case does not satisfy any of the parameters laid down in
Ch.Bhajan Lal (supra) or M/s Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. (supra)
so as to warrant the exercise of the extraordinary inherent jurisdiction of
this Court. At this stage, there is no material to prima facie indicate that
the impugned FIR is manifestly mala fide , frivolous, vexatious, or actuated
by an ulterior motive amounting to an abuse of the process of law. On the
contrary, the allegations contained therein disclose the commission of
cognizable offences, thereby necessitating a fair, impartial and complete
investigation. Judicial interdiction at this incipient stage would, therefore,
be wholly unwarranted.
9.   It is an admitted position emerging during investigation that
the complainant received 3,00,000/- in cash and a cheque of 1,70,000/- ₹ ₹ ,
and that the documents of the complainant’s son were also returned well
prior to registration of the FIR. However, these circumstances, by
themselves, do not obliterate the foundational allegation that the petitioner
had represented himself to be an agent/representative of M/s Pacific
Overseas Consultants, Delhi, and had thereby induced the complainant to
part with the money. Material collected during investigation allegedly
indicates that the said concern had ceased its operations approximately two
months and twenty days prior to the transaction in question. Thus, the
GAURAV SOROT
2026.09.01 16:34
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

CRM-M-48560-2024 (O&M) -:12:-
allegation is that the petitioner knowingly projected himself as acting on
behalf of an entity which had already ceased operations and, on the
strength of such representation, induced the complainant to enter into the
transaction. The subsequent repayment of part of the amount or return of
documents cannot, at this stage, conclusively negate the allegation of
cheating or the dishonest intention attributed to the petitioner at the
inception of the transaction.
9.1.   The rival versions give rise to disputed questions of fact
relating to the petitioner’s representation, his authority to act on behalf of
the aforesaid concern, the status of its operations at the relevant time, the
circumstances surrounding receipt and subsequent repayment of the
money, and, most importantly, the petitioner’s intention at the inception of
the transaction. Such questions necessarily require appreciation of oral and
documentary evidence and cannot be conclusively determined in exercise
of the limited inherent jurisdiction under Section 528 of the Bharatiya
Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023.
9.2.   The subsequent return of part of the amount or the documents,
though relevant, cannot by itself furnish a ground for quashing the
prosecution when the allegations, taken cumulatively, prima facie disclose
the ingredients of the alleged offences. The subsequent conduct of the
parties cannot, at the threshold, conclusively determine the nature of the
intention operating at the inception of the transaction. The defence sought
to be projected by the petitioner is essentially evidentiary in character and
is required to be tested on the basis of the material ultimately brought on
record.
GAURAV SOROT
2026.09.01 16:34
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

CRM-M-48560-2024 (O&M) -:13:-
9.3. Furthermore, this Court, while exercising inherent jurisdiction,
 
cannot undertake a meticulous evaluation of the evidentiary material or
conduct a mini-trial for determining the truthfulness of competing factual
versions. The material collected during investigation cannot be selectively
assessed so as to record a definitive finding regarding the petitioner’s
innocence. The allegations, on their face, cannot be said to be inherently
absurd, inherently improbable or wholly devoid of evidentiary foundation
so as to warrant termination of the criminal proceedings at the threshold.
9.4. It is well settled that the inherent jurisdiction is extraordinary
 
in character and is to be exercised sparingly, cautiously and ex debito
justitiae , only where the allegations, even if accepted at their face value,
fail to disclose any offence or where continuation of the proceedings would
constitute a manifest abuse of the process of law. The present case does not
fall within any such exceptional category. The disputed factual defence
raised by the petitioner cannot be adjudicated merely on the basis of
competing assertions and is appropriately left to be tested during
investigation and trial.
10.   The judicial pronouncements relied upon by the petitioner,
though laying down the settled principle that a purely civil dispute cannot
be given a criminal colour, are clearly distinguishable on facts and do not
advance the petitioner’s case. In the present case, the allegations and
material collected during investigation prima facie indicate dishonest
intention at the inception of the transaction, as the petitioner allegedly
represented himself to be the representative/agent of M/s Pacific Overseas
GAURAV SOROT
2026.09.01 16:34
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

CRM-M-48560-2024 (O&M) -:14:-
Consultants, Delhi, despite the said concern having ceased its operations
approximately two months and twenty days prior to the transaction.
10.1. The mere availability or pendency of a civil remedy does not,
 
ipso facto , extinguish criminality where the allegations prima facie disclose
deception and dishonest inducement at the inception. Whether the
petitioner in fact made such representation and acted with the requisite
dishonest intention are matters for appreciation of evidence. Thus, the
present case is not one of a mere subsequent breach of a civil or contractual
obligation, and the authorities relied upon by the petitioner are
consequently factually inapposite and afford no ground for quashing the
FIR or the consequential proceedings.
11. Accordingly, having regard to the nature of the allegations, the
material presently available on record and the settled parameters governing
exercise of inherent jurisdiction, this Court finds no justifiable ground to
interdict the criminal proceedings at this stage. The petitioner has failed to
demonstrate either the complete absence of a prima facie case or any
manifest abuse of the process of law warranting interference under Section
528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023. Consequently,
without expressing any opinion on the ultimate merits of the allegations,
lest any observation herein prejudice either side during investigation or
trial, the present petition, being devoid of merit, is hereby dismissed .
11.1. It is, however, clarified that the observations recorded herein
are strictly confined to the adjudication of the present petition and shall not
be construed as a final expression of opinion on the merits of the
allegations or the evidentiary worth of the material relied upon by either
GAURAV SOROT
2026.09.01 16:34
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

CRM-M-48560-2024 (O&M) -:15:-
side. The Investigating Agency and, thereafter, the learned Trial Court shall
proceed independently and strictly in accordance with law, uninfluenced by
any observation contained in the present order.
12.   In view of the final adjudication of the principal proceedings,
all pending miscellaneous, ancillary or interconnected applications, if any,
arising therefrom, shall stand disposed of accordingly. No separate or
further orders are warranted in respect thereof.

( VIRINDER AGGARWAL )
01.09.2026 JUDGE
Gaurav Sorot
Whether reasoned / speaking? Yes / No
Whether reportable? Yes / No
GAURAV SOROT
2026.09.01 16:34
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document