P&H: Refuses to quash cheating FIR in ₹20 lakh marriage-linked money dispute

punjab-haryana
⚖️ Order Date: 29 Jul 2026
Headnotes

(i) Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, S.482 — Quashing of FIR — Civil dispute and criminal liability — Mere availability or pendency of a civil remedy does not by itself extinguish criminal liability if the factual allegations disclose the commission of a cognizable offence. (Para 16)

(ii) Indian Penal Code, 1860, Ss.406, 420, 120-B, Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, S.482 — Cheating, criminal breach of trust and conspiracy — FIR specifically alleged that complainant was induced to part with ₹20,00,000 on representation that amount was required for business purposes in Canada and...

(iii) Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, S.482 — Quashing of FIR — Role of accused persons residing abroad — FIR attributed role to petitioners by alleging that amount was sought for expansion of their business in Canada and that all petitioners jointly refused to return the...

(iv) Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, S.482 — Quashing of FIR — Delay in lodging FIR and territorial jurisdiction — Plea regarding delay in lodging FIR and plea relating to territorial jurisdiction were matters requiring examination in light of evidence and factual matrix brought on record...

(v) Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, S.482 — Quashing of FIR — Allegations in FIR, read with material collected during preliminary inquiry, disclosed prima facie commission of cognizable offences and raised disputed questions of fact which could not be adjudicated in proceedings u/s.482 Cr.P.C. (Para 18)


Facts of the Case

P&H: Refuses to quash cheating FIR in ₹20 lakh marriage-linked money dispute

The Punjab and Haryana High Court has refused to quash an FIR registered against three family members in a case involving allegations of cheating, criminal breach of trust and conspiracy over a ₹20 lakh transaction.

The complaint was filed by a Canada-based man who alleged that after his engagement to a woman from Moga, he was persuaded by his prospective relatives to transfer ₹20 lakh for business expansion in Canada. According to him, the money was sent to a joint bank account on the assurance that it would be forwarded to the couple abroad and later returned.

The petitioners argued...

Login required to open full judgment PDF
Login to Access File