IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH -.-

CRM-M-3617-2026 (O&M)

Date of Decision : 12.02.2026 Pawan Kumar ....Petitioners State of Haryana and Another ....Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MANDEEP PANNU Present: Ms. Navneet Kaur, Advocate for the petitioners.

-.-

MANDEEP PANNU J. (Oral)

1. Petition under Section 528 BNSS praying for quashing of FIR No. 194 dated 22.11.2025, registered under Sections 406, 420, and 120-B IPC and Section 24 of the Emmigration Act, 1983, at Police Station Raipur Rani, District Panchkula, Haryana, and all subsequent proceedings arising therefrom.

2. As per the allegations contained in the FIR, the complainant Krishan Lal alleged that accused No.1 Pawan alias Pammi, being a close relative, along with accused No.2 Sandeep alias Bittu, induced him to send his son Vikram to the United States of America on a work visa and assured lawful overseas employment. It is alleged that the accused demanded ₹35,00,000/- for arranging the work visa and, on different occasions, received a total amount of ₹30,00,000/- in cash from the complainant, who arranged the money by selling his land and borrowing from relatives. The accused allegedly insisted on cash payments and assured that the visa would be issued. Subsequently, the complainant was informed that his son had reached America, however, later it came to light that Vikram had been illegally sent, was detained by authorities abroad, and was deported to India after remaining in detention for several months. It is further alleged that despite admitting their mistake and partially returning ₹2,50,000/-, the accused failed to refund the remaining amount and thereby cheated the complainant of ₹35,00,000/-, acting in conspiracy with each other. On these allegations, the present FIR was registered.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the impugned FIR has been lodged after an inordinate and unexplained delay, inasmuch as the alleged transactions commenced in March–April 2023 and, as per the complainant’s own showing, his son had faced deportation by August 2024 at the latest, yet the complaint was instituted only in September 2025 without any explanation for such abnormal delay, rendering the prosecution an afterthought and mala fide. It is argued that the petitioner is merely related to the complainant and the co-accused, has no business or professional connection with any immigration activity, holds no licence, office or infrastructure for visa consultancy, and no specific, distinct or overt act has been attributed to him. The FIR does not allege that any amount was transferred to the petitioner’s bank account, rather, the alleged payments of ₹35,00,000/- are stated to have been made entirely in cash, without any receipt, voucher, bank record, documentary proof or named witness, and even partial amounts are alleged to have been returned pursuant to a settlement, demonstrating that the dispute is essentially monetary in nature. It is further submitted that there is no averment of any fraudulent or dishonest intention on the part of the petitioner from the inception of the transaction, nor any allegation that he prepared, forged or submitted any visa application or facilitated any illegal route; the FIR is conspicuously silent as to how the complainant’s son travelled abroad without qualifying mandatory tests such as IELTS/TOEFL or attending embassy procedures, and no material particulars are disclosed regarding the alleged travel. The petitioner asserts that the criminal law is being misused as a pressure tactic for recovery of money, that vague and omnibus allegations without foundational facts fall within the parameters laid down in State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, and that continuation of proceedings would amount to gross abuse of the process of law. Reliance is placed upon authoritative pronouncements including Anukul Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr. 2025 INSC 1153, Delhi Race Club (1940) Ltd. v. State of Uttar Pradesh (2024) 10