IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
CRM-M-6812-2026 (O&M)
Date of decision: 27.05.2026
Surjit Singh ...Petitioner(s)
VERSUS
State of Punjab and another ...Respondent(s)
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD S. BHARDWAJ
Present :- Mr. Swaraj Sharma, Advocate for the petitioner
(through V.C.).
Ms. Alisha Soni, AAG Punjab.
Mr. Vishal Tartyal, Advocate for respondent No.2.
*****
VINOD S. BHARDWAJ, J. (Oral)
1. Prayer in the present petition is for quashing of FIR No.234 dated 18.11.2021 registered under Sections 420 & 406 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 at PS Sujanpur, Pathankot along with all consequential proceedings arising therefrom on the basis of compromise deed dated 29.01.2026 (Annexure P-2).
2. Briefly summarized, the present FIR was registered on the complaint of Praveen Kumar son of Uttam Chand. The complainant alleged that accused Surjit Singh son of Diwan Singh approached him and represented that he could secure a government job for the complainant’s unemployed son, namely Sandeep Kumar, in the Military Engineering Services (MES) Department. It is the case of the prosecution that the accused assured the complainant that he had close acquaintance and influence with senior officers of the concerned department and possessed the necessary arrangements and connections to procure such employment. Acting upon the said representations and assurances, the complainant reposed confidence in the accused and on the strength of the aforesaid promise, the accused induced him to part with a total sum of Rs.5,00,000/-. Out of the said amount, Rs.3,00,000/- was paid through cheque, whereas the remaining Rs.2,00,000/- was paid in cash.
3. The complainant further alleged that despite receiving the aforesaid amount, the accused failed to secure any employment for his son. It was asserted that even after the lapse of a considerable period of time, neither was any government job arranged nor was the amount received by the accused returned to the complainant. It was further alleged that instead of honouring his assurances, the accused avoided the complainant and absconded from his residence. The complainant stated that the whereabouts and present address of the accused had subsequently been ascertained.
4. On the basis of the aforesaid allegations, the complainant asserted that the accused had dishonestly induced him to part with a substantial amount of money on the false pretext of securing government employment for his son and had thereby cheated him, leading to the registration of the present FIR.
5. However, with the intervention of the respectables, the parties have decided to compromise the matter. Hence, the present petition.
6. The parties were directed to appear before the learned trial Court/Illaqa Magistrate vide order dated 06.02.2026 of this Court, to get their statements recorded regarding the compromise arrived at between the parties and a report in this regard was called for.
7. Pursuant to the said order, report has been received from the Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Pathankot vide Memo No. 129 dated 09.04.2026. The relevant extract of the report is reproduced as under:-
| S. No. | Information required |
| Question I | Total number of persons found involved as accused in the dispute/FIR; |
| Answer | As per FIR and statement of Investigating Officer, there is only one accused namely Surjit Singh in the present case. |
| Question II | Number of complainant/victim(s); |
| Answer | As per FIR and statement of Investigating Officer, there is only one complainant namely Parveen Kumar in the present case. (It, however, deserves mentioned here that accused had duped the complainant for procuring employment for son of complainant namely Sandeep Kumar. Of course, as per record money had been passed by complainant alone.) |
| Question III | Whether all the accused and complainant / victims are party to compromise & signed the same; |
| Answer | Both the parties i.e. accused Surjit Singh and complainant Parveen Kumar are parties to the compromise and signed the same. Original compromise deed had been produced before the undersigned. |
| Question IV | In case, any affected person (accused or complainant) is left out or not arrayed as party in the quashing petition before High Court, detail whereof; OR His/her statement is still to be recorded, in compliance to the direction of this Court, details of such person; |
| Answer | Nil. |
| Q | |
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.