Foreign Study Visa Dispute: Mere Allegations of False Assurances by Travel Agent Insufficient to Summon Accused for Cheating Without Supporting Material; Punjab and Haryana High Court Upholds Dismissal of Criminal Complaint, Cites Unexplained Five-Year Delay and Non-Examination of Material Witness

Case Name: Gurmeet Singh v. Jain Overseas Travel Agency and Others

Date of Judgment: 24 September 2026

Citation: CRM-M-30376-2026

Bench: Hon’ble Mrs. Justice Manisha Batra

Held: The Punjab and Haryana High Court held that criminal process cannot be issued merely on allegations that an overseas education consultant made false representations regarding the nature of a foreign educational institution, where the material produced by the complainant does not disclose sufficient grounds for proceeding against the accused. At the stage of considering issuance of process, a Magistrate is required to apply judicial mind to the complaint, preliminary evidence and accompanying documents, and may decline to summon the accused where the allegations are inherently improbable or unsupported by sufficient material.

The Court further held that non-examination of a material witness who was directly involved in the underlying transaction may legitimately be considered while assessing whether sufficient grounds exist for proceeding under Section 203 Cr.P.C. Where the complainant’s daughter was the principal beneficiary of the overseas education arrangement and the person best placed to explain the representations made and the circumstances encountered abroad, her unexplained non-examination was a relevant consideration, particularly when other circumstances also weakened the allegations.

The High Court observed that allegations of forgery under Sections 465, 467, 468 and 471 IPC could not be sustained without identification of any particular forged document or supporting material. It further held that an unexplained delay of approximately five years in initiating criminal proceedings, despite knowledge of the alleged misrepresentation at the time of admission, could be considered alongside the remaining circumstances while examining the complaint.

Reiterating the limited scope of inherent jurisdiction under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, the Court held that the High Court cannot reappreciate evidence or act as an appellate forum over concurrent factual findings of subordinate courts unless such findings are perverse, unsupported by material, illegal or affected by jurisdictional error. Consequently, the dismissal of the criminal complaint and the revisional order affirming it did not warrant interference.

Summary: The Punjab and Haryana High Court, while exercising its inherent jurisdiction under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, considered a petition challenging the dismissal of a criminal complaint alleging cheating, forgery, criminal breach of trust and conspiracy against an overseas education consultancy. The controversy concerned whether alleged false assurances regarding admission to a government college in Canada, followed by substantial financial expenditure, furnished sufficient grounds for summoning the accused and whether the concurrent orders declining to proceed with the complaint warranted interference.

The petitioner, Gurmeet Singh, a retired Subedar of the Indian Army, sought to send his daughter, Navneet Kaur, to Canada for higher education. In April 2018, he approached Jain Overseas Travel Agency, operated by respondent No. 2, Sumit Jain, along with his associate Shivani, respondent No. 3. According to the petitioner, the respondents represented that his daughter would secure admission to a government college in Canada where the tuition fees would be comparatively low and she would be permitted to work for 20 hours per week while pursuing her studies. They allegedly further assured him that completion of the course would enable her to obtain a three-year work permit, eventually facilitating permanent residency.

Acting upon these assurances, the petitioner obtained an offer letter from Coquitlam College upon payment of ₹21,000. He also secured a bank loan of ₹6,97,420 and remitted the amount to Supreme Security. After obtaining a visa on 01.08.2018, his daughter travelled to Canada on 29.08.2018.

The petitioner alleged that upon reaching Canada, his daughter discovered that Coquitlam College was not a government institution but a private college charging substantially higher fees. He further claimed that the course of her choice was unavailable and that she was not permitted to work as previously represented. Consequently, the petitioner was required to arrange additional finances, including a payment of ₹1,72,000 in December 2019.

According to the complaint, the petitioner ultimately incurred an expenditure of ₹66,33,218 towards fees at the two colleges attended by his daughter. He claimed to have financed these expenses by selling his old house, mortgaging another property, obtaining a bank loan and arranging ₹38,00,729 from relatives residing abroad.

After allegedly receiving no effective response to his police complaint, the petitioner instituted a criminal complaint on 18.11.2023 against the respondents under Sections 420, 468, 406, 467, 465, 471, 120-B and 506 IPC.

The Judicial Magistrate First Class, Bholath, dismissed the complaint under Section 203 Cr.P.C. by order dated 17.12.2024, after examining the complainant, three other witnesses and the documents placed on record. The Magistrate found that the petitioner’s daughter, being the person most directly concerned with the educational arrangements and alleged representations, had not been examined despite being available. An adverse inference was consequently drawn against the complainant.

The Magistrate also observed that the petitioner and his daughter were educated persons who could have verified the status of Coquitlam College before remitting substantial amounts, particularly when the offer letter had been obtained at the petitioner’s own request.

Significantly, the police inquiry conducted by the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Criminal Investigation, Kapurthala, had revealed that the petitioner’s daughter had herself selected the college and course. The inquiry further indicated that she had failed to obtain a work permit because she had failed in three semesters, rather than on account of any misrepresentation attributable to the respondents.

The Magistrate additionally found that no material identifying any forged document had been produced to substantiate the offences alleged under Sections 465, 467, 468 and 471 IPC. It was also noted that although the petitioner claimed that his daughter discovered the true status of the college in 2018, the police were first approached in 2022 and the criminal complaint was instituted only in November 2023, without a satisfactory explanation for the delay.

The petitioner challenged the dismissal before the Additional Sessions Judge, Kapurthala, but the criminal revision was dismissed by order dated 09.04.2026. The revisional Court observed that the evidence primarily established that the petitioner had sent his daughter to Canada for higher studies and had paid the requisite fees. It found no sufficient material establishing the alleged cheating and noted that the petitioner and his daughter were not compelled to proceed with admission or payment if dissatisfied with the institution or its terms.

Aggrieved by the concurrent orders, the petitioner invoked the inherent jurisdiction of the High Court under Section 528 BNSS. Initially appearing in person, he was subsequently provided legal assistance through the appointment of Mr. Neeraj Poswal, Advocate, as Amicus Curiae.

On behalf of the petitioner, it was argued that the respondents had dishonestly induced him from the inception by falsely representing Coquitlam College as a government institution, thereby attracting Sections 420 and 120-B IPC. It was further contended that the Magistrate and revisional Court had effectively conducted a mini-trial at the preliminary stage, although their jurisdiction was confined to determining whether a prima facie case existed.

The petitioner submitted that non-examination of his daughter could not, by itself, justify dismissal of the complaint. He also attributed the delay to the COVID-19 pandemic, contending that his daughter had remained stranded abroad and that the full extent of the alleged fraud became apparent only after her return to India in 2022.

Reliance was placed upon the Supreme Court decisions in Nagawwa v. Veeranna Shivalingappa Konjalgi, (1976) 3 SCC 736, and Pepsi Foods Ltd. v. Special Judicial Magistrate, (1998) 5 SCC 749, concerning the judicial scrutiny required before issuance of criminal process.

Examining the matter, the High Court emphasised that its jurisdiction under Section 528 BNSS does not extend to reassessing evidence as though hearing an appeal. Interference with concurrent findings is justified only where such findings are perverse, unsupported by evidence, illegal or affected by jurisdictional error.

The Court noted that the Magistrate had examined the complainant’s witnesses and documentary evidence before recording specific reasons for dismissing the complaint. In particular, the petitioner’s daughter was the most material witness because she could have clarified the representations allegedly made by the respondents and the actual circumstances encountered upon reaching Canada. Her unexplained non-examination was, therefore, a relevant circumstance in assessing whether sufficient grounds existed for proceeding.

The High Court also considered the findings of the police inquiry, which attributed the daughter’s inability to obtain a work permit to her academic failures rather than to any conduct of the respondents. The Court further noted the absence of particulars identifying forged documents, thereby leaving the allegations of forgery without the necessary factual foundation.

Addressing the petitioner’s reliance on Nagawwa and Pepsi Foods Ltd., the Court clarified that the principles laid down in those decisions did not advance his case. While both judgments emphasise that summoning an accused is a serious judicial act requiring application of mind, they also recognise that a Magistrate may decline to issue process where the allegations, even when taken at face value, do not disclose sufficient grounds for proceeding.

The Court rejected the contention that the Magistrate had dismissed the complaint solely because the petitioner’s daughter was not examined. It observed that her non-examination had been considered alongside other circumstances, including the petitioner’s conduct, the police inquiry findings, the absence of material supporting forgery and the delay in initiating proceedings.

On the issue of limitation of time in approaching the criminal justice system, the High Court noted that the petitioner claimed to have discovered the true status of Coquitlam College in 2018 itself. The subsequent outbreak of the COVID-19 pandemic could not satisfactorily explain why the police were first approached in 2022 and the criminal complaint was filed only in November 2023. The delay of approximately five years was consequently regarded as an additional circumstance casting doubt upon the complaint.

The Court further rejected the allegation that the revisional Court had mechanically affirmed the Magistrate’s order. It observed that the revisional Court had independently considered the material and concluded that the evidence established expenditure on foreign education but failed to substantiate the alleged criminal conduct.

The High Court accordingly found that both subordinate courts had arrived at concurrent factual conclusions after considering the evidence produced by the petitioner and that no illegality, perversity or jurisdictional error had been demonstrated. The Court therefore declined to interfere with the orders dismissing the criminal complaint and the revision petition.

Decision: The Punjab and Haryana High Court dismissed the petition filed under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, and upheld the order dated 17.12.2024 passed by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Bholath, dismissing the criminal complaint under Section 203 Cr.P.C., as well as the revisional order dated 09.04.2026 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Kapurthala.

The Court held that the complainant had failed to demonstrate any perversity, illegality or jurisdictional error in the concurrent findings of the subordinate courts. The unexplained non-examination of the most material witness, findings of the police inquiry, absence of particulars supporting the allegations of forgery and substantially unexplained delay of approximately five years were all relevant circumstances supporting the conclusion that sufficient grounds for summoning the respondents had not been established.

The Court reiterated that inherent jurisdiction cannot be invoked merely to secure a fresh appreciation of evidence where the subordinate courts have independently examined the material and arrived at legally sustainable conclusions.