Gurugram: The Punjab and Haryana High Court has ruled that a compromise between parties in a criminal case involving cheating and public interest cannot absolve the accused of criminal liability, saying such offences are not merely private disputes but wrongs against the society.
Justice Sumeet Goel made these observations while dismissing an anticipatory bail petition of a person accused of cheating the complainant by defrauding him of Rs 4.5 lakh on the promise of getting him a government job.
The counsel for the petitioner argued that his client had entered into a written compromise with the complainant and had returned Rs 1.4 lakh. The counsel argued that the accused was ready to join the investigation and that he had no previous criminal record.
The state counsel opposed the bail plea, saying it was the third plea by the accused after two earlier petitions were withdrawn on 1 April and 1 July.
The court rejected the bail plea, saying offences of cheating and criminal conspiracy are not compoundable and anticipatory bail cannot be granted at this stage, unless permitted by statute.
“Repayment of money does not obliterate the offence of cheating once inducement and deception are prima facie established, in particular, where the offence alleged cannot be said to have an adverse impact upon the duped victims alone,” Justice Goel observed.
The HC emphasised that the nature of deception not only causes financial loss to victims but also “undermines the sanctity of public administration, thereby eroding confidence in fairness and transparency in public employment/recruitment processes”.
According to the prosecution, an FIR was registered on 2 November 2023 in Sangrur for cheating and criminal conspiracy. The complainants, Gurvinder and Amarjit Singh, alleged that the accused, Gurpreet Singh, and his associates defrauded them of Rs 4.5 lakh by promising government jobs.
They alleged that Gurpreet approached the complainants on 5 September 2021 and assured them of government employment in exchange for Rs 10 lakh. He demanded half the payment in advance.
The complainant paid Rs 4.5 lakh to the accused on 8 and 17 September, of which Rs 1.4 lakh was transferred to his bank account.
While denying anticipatory bail to the accused, the HC observed that the alleged offence “strikes at the very root of public trust in the integrity of government institutions and recruitment process” and assumes “a character that transcends the domain of individual grievance and attains/adorns the complexion of a societal wrong warranting strict judicial scrutiny”.
The court stated that such an offence constitutes a wrong “against the State as well as public at large”, noting that it affects not just individual victims but undermines public confidence in the fairness of government recruitment processes.
Also Read: How HC cracked down on Haryana Police’s ‘habit of backdoor mercy’ for convicted personnel
Third bail application
The petition was Singh’s third attempt to secure pre-arrest bail, with previous applications withdrawn on 1 April and 1 July, 2025. The court noted that no substantial change in circumstances had been demonstrated to warrant reconsideration.
It held that the investigation is at a nascent stage and custodial interrogation is necessary to trace the money trail and uncover the full extent of the conspiracy. Granting anticipatory bail at this stage, the judge said, would likely hamper the investigation and potentially lead to tampering with evidence or influencing witnesses.
Citing its judgement in the 2024 Bhisham Singh vs State of Haryana case, the HC held that for the second anticipatory bail petition to succeed, the petitioner shall be required to show a substantial change in circumstances.
A mere superficial or ostensible change would not suffice, it said.
Citing the Supreme Court’s decision in the 1997 CBI vs Anil Sharma case on why custodial interrogation is necessary, Justice Goel observed that it “is qualitatively more elicitation-oriented than questioning a suspect who is well-ensconced with a favourable order of an anticipatory bail”.
In the above-mentioned case, the apex court held that custodial interrogation of the petitioner was necessary to uncover the full extent of the conspiracy and to determine the role attributed to the accused and ensure a fair and free investigation.
The court clarified that nothing in its order should be deemed an expression of opinion on the merits of the case or investigation.
(Edited by Sugita Katyal)
Also Read: Don’t rely on AI, Google mid-argument—Punjab & Haryana HC warning divides legal practitioners