Inherent jurisdiction cannot reappreciate evidence absent perversity, illegality, or jurisdictional error in concurrent findings.

The petitioner, a retired Subedar, engaged Jain Overseas Travel Agency and its proprietors/associates to facilitate his daughter Navneet Kaur’s higher studies in Canada. The respondents allegedly represented that Coquitlam College was a government institution, that the course fee would be low, and that the daughter would be permitted to work part-time and obtain a post-study work permit. Relying on these representations, the petitioner paid substantial amounts towards admission, travel and educational expenses. After reaching Canada in August 2018, his daughter allegedly discovered that the college was privately run, the proposed course was unavailable, and she was not permitted to work. The petitioner claimed to have incurred approximately ₹66,33,218 towards his daughter’s education and related expenses.

After alleging inaction by the police, the petitioner filed a criminal complaint on 18 November 2023 under Sections 420, 468, 406, 467, 465, 471, 120-B and 506 IPC. The Judicial Magistrate dismissed the complaint under Section 203 Cr.P.C., principally noting that the petitioner’s daughter—the material witness—had not been examined, that the college’s antecedents could have been verified, that a police inquiry attributed the choice of college and course to the daughter, and that no specific forged document had been identified. The Magistrate also considered the unexplained delay between the alleged discovery of the facts in 2018 and the filing of the complaint in 2023.

The petitioner’s revision was dismissed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Kapurthala, on 9 April 2026. The petitioner thereafter invoked the High Court’s inherent jurisdiction under Section 528 BNSS to challenge both orders.

Whether the orders dismissing the petitioner’s criminal complaint and revision disclosed any illegality, perversity or jurisdictional error warranting interference under Section 528 BNSS?

Whether the material on record disclosed a prima facie case of cheating, criminal breach of trust, forgery, use of forged documents, conspiracy or criminal intimidation against the respondents so as to justify issuance of process?

Whether the Magistrate improperly conducted a mini-trial by relying on the non-examination of the petitioner’s daughter, the police inquiry, the absence of particulars of forgery and the delay in filing the complaint?

The Court applied Section 528 BNSS, which preserves the High Court’s inherent jurisdiction to prevent abuse of process and secure the ends of justice; such jurisdiction is not appellate and interference is warranted only where the impugned order is perverse, unsupported by material, illegal or affected by jurisdictional error.

The Court also considered Section 203 Cr.P.C., under which a Magistrate may dismiss a complaint where, after considering the complainant’s evidence and the result of inquiry, there is insufficient ground for proceeding.

The substantive allegations were examined with reference to Sections 420, 406, 465, 467, 468, 471, 120-B and 506 IPC.

Relying on Nagawwa v. Veeranna Shivalingappa Konjalgi, (1976) 3 SCC 736, and Pepsi Foods Ltd. v. Special Judicial Magistrate, (1998) 5 SCC 749, the Court reiterated that issuance of process is a serious matter requiring judicial application of mind, and that process may be refused where the allegations, even if taken at face value, do not disclose sufficient grounds or are inherently improbable.

The Court held that the Magistrate had considered the petitioner’s statement, the testimony of his witnesses and the documents produced before dismissing the complaint. The daughter was the most material witness because she was the person who allegedly received the representations and personally encountered the circumstances in Canada; her unexplained non-examination materially weakened the complaint.

The Court also relied on the petitioner’s failure to specify any forged document, the police inquiry indicating that the daughter had selected the college and course and that the work-permit issue resulted from her failure in three semesters, and the fact that the petitioner and his daughter could have verified the college before paying substantial sums.

The Court rejected the argument that the lower courts had conducted an impermissible mini-trial. It found that the Magistrate had not relied solely on the daughter’s non-examination but had cumulatively considered several circumstances, including the available evidence, the police inquiry, the absence of material supporting the forgery offences and the petitioner’s conduct.

The explanation based on the COVID-19 pandemic was also found insufficient because, on the petitioner’s own case, the alleged falsity became known in 2018, whereas the police were approached only in 2022 and the complaint was filed in 2023.

The revisional court’s decision was therefore not a mechanical affirmation but was consistent with the Magistrate’s reasons.

The allegations and evidence were insufficient to justify summoning the respondents for the alleged offences.

The petition under Section 528 BNSS was accordingly dismissed, and any pending miscellaneous applications were also disposed of.