IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
SANDEEP SHARMA, J.
Hardeep Singh - Petitioner
Versus
State of Himachal Pradesh and Anr. - Respondents
CrMMO No. 518 of 2025
Decided On : 24-03-2026
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. fir alleges cheating via false uk visa/job promises (Para 1 , 2 , 3) |
| 2. parties contend on s420 ipc offence disclosure (Para 4 , 5 , 6) |
| 3. quashing power under s482 crpc/528 bnss scope (Para 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15) |
| 4. cheating requires initial dishonest inducement (ss415,420 ipc) (Para 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20) |
| 5. fir prima facie discloses cheating offence against petitioner (Para 21 , 22 , 23 , 24 , 25) |
| 6. compromise failure; disputed facts for trial (Para 26 , 27 , 28) |
| 7. petition to quash fir dismissed (Para 29) |
JUDGMENT :
Sandeep Sharma, J.
By way of present petition, prayer has been made by the petitioner for quashing of FIR No. 275 of 2024, dated 6.9.2024, registered under Section 420 of Indian Penal Code, at Police Station Una Sadar, District Una, Himachal Pradesh as well as consequent proceedings pending in the competent court of law.
2. For having bird’s eye view, facts relevant for adjudication of the case at hand, are that FIR sought to be quashed came to be lodged at the behest of the complainant namely Rahul Kumar and his wife Smt. Sonali Thakur, who had been living in ward No.10, Mohalla Behli, Una Town, Tehsil and District Una, Himachal Pradesh, for the last nine years. Complainant Rahul Kumar, who is in the business of property dealing and construction of building, saw an advertisement of M/s Harnidh Overseas Pathway Education (in short “HOPE”), having its office at SCO 33, 2nd Floor, Chhotti Baradari Part-2, Jalandhar, Punjab, whereby it came to be claimed that its office at Jalandhar is a branch of HOPE for providing services of Visa and employment in United Kingdom (herein after referred to as “UK”). The complainant with a view to provide job to his wife namely Sonali Thakur and education to his daughter namely Yashika, contacted the afore office of the accused through social media phone number (7743000860) and asked for the details of the services provided by the Company. One Mr. Rajat picked up the phone and identified himself as authorized representative of the HOPE, who apprised the complainant that HOPE is having collaboration with companies in UK. Above named Rajat after having inquired the qualification of the complainant assured that HOPE will arrange for the work permit and job to Ms. Sonali Thakur as skilled worker. He also assured that in order to get Permanent Residency (PR) in UK, complainant will be inducted as partner in one of their ventures in UK to the extent of 10% share of the first year and after one year, his share will be raised to 25%. Allegedly, afore person further promised complainant and his family members that they will get PR status after three years. Representative of the accused Company Mr. Gagandeep Singh asked for payment of total consideration of Rs. 30.00 lakh plus expenses of Visa and Air Tickets in advance for providing these services, however complainant negotiated the amount and sum of Rs.27.00 lakh plus Visa fee and tickets on actual basis was agreed to be paid. Accused provided bank account number of Sh. Hardeep Singh, Managing Director of HOPE and his associates namely Sh. Gagandeep Singh, Ms. Kiran HOPE and Ms. Rhythm Verma, for transfer of funds. Complainant transferred the agreed amount through electronic transfer and RTGS to the bank accounts provided by the above named persons. Initially, amount was transferred to the G-Pay account of Hardeep Singh, Managing Director of HOPE, who asked for copies of passport and other documents, which was also provided. Accused named in the FIR allegedly created email account of their own and filed the applications for Visa and other purposes without there being authority and also used incorrect information. The Visa issued by UK Government showed the complainant Rahul Kumar as partner in business but fact remains that company detailed herein above, never inducted him as such. The email ID and password created and used by accused persons was disclosed to complainant on 30.08.2023. Accused charged the am
Prashant Bharti v. State (NCT of Delhi)
Rajiv Thapar and Ors v. Madan Lal Kapoor
FIR under IPC 420 not quashed where prima facie cheating by dishonest inducement via false promises of overseas job, work permit and residency shown, despite partial visa/travel, as quashing under Cr....
Dishonest intention must be established from the inception of a transaction to constitute cheating under IPC, and mere allegations without evidence do not warrant quashing of FIR.
Point of law: Criminal cases involving offences which arise from commercial, financial, mercantile, partnership or similar transactions with an essentially civil flavour may in appropriate situations....
The court emphasized the need for compelling reasons of abuse of process of law or glaring injustice to exercise jurisdiction under Sec. 482, and highlighted the necessity to balance law enforcement ....
(1) Dishonest inducement is sine qua non to attract provisions of Sections 415 and 420 of IPC.(2) Any effort to settle civil disputes and claims which do not involve any criminal offence, by applying....
The truth or falsity of the allegations in the complaint should not be determined at the earliest stage.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.