Karnataka HC Refuses To Quash Cheating Probe Into Agent Accused Of Taking ₹1.2 Lakh Each From 3 Men Over Malaysia Job Promises

Respondents Nos. 2–4 complained that the petitioner, who operated a placement agency, promised them employment in Malaysia and charged each ₹1,20,000.

They alleged that, despite travelling to Malaysia, they were made to work 17 hours a day without the promised facilities and returned to India with the Indian Embassy’s assistance.

Mangaluru North Police registered Crime No. 40/2023 for offences under Section 420 IPC and Sections 10 and 24 of the Immigration Act, 1983, as described in the judgment.

The petitioner sought to quash the proceedings, contending that he had arranged travel and employment and that any dispute concerned the complainants and their Malaysian employer.

The Court considered Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 10 and 24 of the Immigration Act, 1983, as identified in the judgment.

It applied the principle that criminal proceedings may be quashed sparingly: at the quashing stage, the court examines whether the complaint, taken at face value, discloses the alleged offences, but does not conduct a mini-trial or assess the sufficiency of evidence.

No judicial precedents were cited.

The complaint alleged that the petitioner made representations about the nature and conditions of employment before receiving money from the complainants. Whether those representations were false and made with dishonest intent required investigation; the petitioner’s assertion that he arranged tickets and employment did not, by itself, negate the alleged cheating.

The Court also stated that the complaint disclosed specific acts constituting offences under Sections 10 and 24.

Because the allegations prima facie warranted investigation, and their truth and the petitioner’s role could not be determined through a mini-trial at this stage, the Court declined to quash the proceedings.

The petitioner remained at liberty to raise permissible defences at the appropriate stage.

The Court also observed that the investigating agency could examine the Malaysian employer’s role, subject to the prescribed legal procedure, or notify the competent Malaysian authorities.