MANDEEP SINGH vs STATE OF HARYANA AND ANOTHER — CRM-M/7686/2026

Disposed: --ALLOWED on 11th May 2026.

Case disposed Next hearing 11-May-2026

CNR: PHHC010214102026

Filing Number

CRM-M/7343/2026

Filing Date

05-Feb-2026

Registration No

CRM-M/7686/2026

Registration Date

07-Feb-2026

Judge

Mr. Justice Vinod S. Bhardwaj

Coram

Mr. Justice Vinod S. Bhardwaj

Bench Type

Single

Category

38.21 - QUASHING PETITION COMPROMISE U/S 482 CRPC GEN ( 641 )

Judicial Branch

CRIMINAL BRANCH

Decision Date

11-May-2026

Nature of Disposal

--ALLOWED

Last updated 01-Jun-2026

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.MANDEEP SINGH

    Adv. PARAMPREET SINGH BAJWA

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.STATE OF HARYANA AND ANOTHER

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 11-May-2026

    Mr. Justice Vinod S. BhardwajView PDF

    Summary: The High Court of Punjab & Haryana quashed FIR No. 430 (registered for cheating, criminal breach of trust, and emigration violations) against petitioner Mandeep Singh following a compromise between him and complainant Narinder Singh. The court found that the dispute—involving alleged fraud of ₹6.27 lakh through fake overseas work permit promises—had a predominantly civil character, the parties had voluntarily settled with intervention of community members, conviction likelihood was remote, and continued proceedings would constitute abuse of process. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  3. 05-Feb-2026

    Case filed

    Registration No. CRM-M/7686/2026

casestatus.in Summary

Summary: The High Court of Punjab & Haryana quashed FIR No. 430 (registered for cheating, criminal breach of trust, and emigration violations) against petitioner Mandeep Singh following a compromise between him and complainant Narinder Singh. The court found that the dispute—involving alleged fraud of ₹6.27 lakh through fake overseas work permit promises—had a predominantly civil character, the parties had voluntarily settled with intervention of community members, conviction likelihood was remote, and continued proceedings would constitute abuse of process. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

District Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case