Quashing is unwarranted where allegations prima facie disclose cheating and disputed facts require trial.

The petitioner sought quashing under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, of FIR No. 79 of 2011 registered at Police Station Bhawanigarh, Sangrur, under Sections 420 and 120-B IPC, along with the consequential charge-sheet, order framing charge dated 14.06.2023, and subsequent criminal proceedings.

The complainant alleged that the petitioner represented himself as having influential contacts and as being connected with M/s Pacific Overseas Consultants, Delhi, and induced him to pay ₹4,70,000 for securing an educational visa, employment and settlement in the United Kingdom for his son.

The complainant further alleged that the petitioner obtained signed documents, failed to arrange the promised services, and issued a cheque for ₹1,70,000 after initially returning ₹3,00,000; the cheque was allegedly dishonoured.

The petitioner contended that the dispute was essentially commercial, that the entire amount had substantially been repaid, that the documents had been returned, and that the prosecution had become oppressive due to the complainant’s and witnesses’ failure to appear before the Trial Court despite coercive processes.

During investigation, co-accused Prem Kathuria was found innocent, whereas the petitioner was charge-sheeted and charge under Section 420 IPC was framed.

Whether the allegations in the FIR and the material collected during investigation prima facie disclosed the commission of offences under Sections 420 and 120-B IPC so as to justify continuation of the criminal proceedings?

Whether the petitioner’s defence regarding repayment of money, return of documents, alleged mala fides, and prolonged delay constituted exceptional circumstances warranting quashing under Section 528 BNSS?

Whether the High Court could determine the disputed questions concerning the petitioner’s representation, authority, the status of the consultancy, repayment, and dishonest intention at the inception of the transaction in exercise of inherent jurisdiction?

The Court applied Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, which preserves the High Court’s inherent jurisdiction to prevent abuse of process and secure the ends of justice.

It considered the principles in R.P. Kapur v. State of Punjab, AIR 1960 SC 866, and State of Haryana v. Ch. Bhajan Lal, 1991 (1) RCR (Criminal) 383, under which quashing may be exercised where the allegations, even if accepted in full, do not constitute an offence, are absurd or inherently improbable, are legally barred, or are manifestly mala fide; however, the power must be exercised sparingly and the Court must not assess the reliability or genuineness of evidence at the threshold.

Relying also on M/s Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Maharashtra, (2021) 19 SCC 401, the Court reiterated that inherent jurisdiction cannot be used to conduct a mini-trial, appreciate disputed evidence, or adjudicate the accused’s defence.

The Court further applied the settled principle that subsequent repayment or availability of a civil remedy does not extinguish criminality where the allegations prima facie disclose deception and dishonest inducement at the inception of the transaction.

The Court held that the FIR contained specific allegations that the petitioner represented himself as an agent or representative of M/s Pacific Overseas Consultants and induced the complainant to part with ₹4,70,000 on assurances of securing overseas education and employment.

Material collected during investigation allegedly indicated that the consultancy had ceased operations approximately two months and twenty days before the transaction, supporting, at the prima facie stage, an inference that the petitioner may have knowingly made a false representation.

The subsequent return of ₹3,00,000, issuance of a cheque for ₹1,70,000, and return of documents did not conclusively negate dishonest intention at the inception of the transaction.

The petitioner’s assertions regarding repayment, mala fides, witness non-appearance and procedural irregularities involved disputed factual and evidentiary questions that could not be resolved without appreciation of evidence or a mini-trial.

Since the allegations were neither inherently absurd nor manifestly frivolous or mala fide, the case did not fall within any of the recognised categories for quashing under Bhajan Lal or Neeharika Infrastructure.

The petition seeking quashing of FIR No. 79 of 2011, the charge-sheet, the order framing charge dated 14.06.2023, and all consequential proceedings was dismissed.

The Court clarified that its observations were confined to the quashing petition and would not prejudice the investigation or trial on the merits.

All pending miscellaneous or connected applications were disposed of accordingly.