Vikas Mehta vs State of Punjab

VIRINDER AGGARWAL, J. (Oral)

The instant petition has been filed under Section 482 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (corresponding to Section 438 of the Cr.P.C.), seeking grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner in FIR No.169 dated 15.07.2026 registered under Section 318(4) of BNS, 2023 (Section 420 of IPC) at Police Station Civil Lines, District Patiala, Punjab.

The case of the prosecution is that FIR was registered on the complaint of Pawan Kumar, who alleged that the petitioner, Vikas Mehta, working as a travel agent under the name and style of Career Education Group, induced him to pay money on the promise of sending him to Dubai on a work visa. The complainant initially paid ₹25,000 in cash and thereafter ₹2,15,000 through RTGS and ₹35,000 through two Google Pay transactions, totalling ₹2,75,000. Despite receiving the amount, the petitioner neither arranged the visa nor returned the money. Subsequently, on the complainant's demand for refund, the petitioner issued a cheque of ₹3,82,000, which was dishonoured for insufficiency of funds. A preliminary inquiry was conducted, wherein the allegations were found substantiated and it was reported that the petitioner had dishonestly induced the complainant by making a false promise of sending him to Dubai. Consequently, FIR No.169 dated 15.07.2026 under Section 318(4) BNS was registered.

Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the matter involved is a civil dispute. Complainant has already availed his remedy by filing complaint under Section 138 of NI Act. Transactions are of September to November, 2023 and FIR has been got registered in July, 2023. It is further contended that alleged money was transferred through banking channels and the case is based upon documents. No custodial interrogation is required and thus, a prayer has been made for grant of concession of anticipatory bail.

Notice of Motion .

Mr. J.S. Rattu, learned DAG, Punjab, accepts notice on behalf of the respondent/State. He contended that the custodial interrogation of the petitioner is required as petitioner acting as Immigration Agent has promised grant of work Visa of Dubai to the complainant for a sum of Rs.2,75,000/- and out of that amount Rs.2,15,000/- was transferred to him through RTGS in his bank account and Rs.10,000/- were paid through Google Pay and in September, 2023, Rs.25,000/- were handed over in cash but petitioner failed to get any work Visa. The State, therefore, seeks dismissal of the petition.

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record.

Considering the facts and circumstances of the present case, this Court finds that the petitioner, by projecting himself as an Immigration Agent, allegedly induced the complainant to part with his hard-earned money on the promise of arranging a work visa for Dubai. Despite receiving a total amount of ₹2,75,000/-, the petitioner neither arranged the promised work visa nor refunded the amount. The cheque issued by the petitioner towards repayment was also dishonoured for insufficiency of funds, resulting in separate proceedings under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881.

The mere fact that proceedings under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act have been initiated does not absolve the petitioner of the allegations of cheating, as the offences arising from dishonest inducement and dishonour of cheque are distinct in nature and proceedings in respect thereof can proceed simultaneously. The allegations in the present case require proper investigation, including with regard to the manner in which the petitioner represented himself as an Immigration Agent, the transactions effected through banking channels and the circumstances in which the complainant was allegedly induced to part with his money. The contention that the dispute is purely civil in nature, therefore, cannot be accepted at this stage.

The allegations are serious and pertain to the exploitation of persons seeking employment abroad by allegedly making false promises of arranging work visas. Such instances have become increasingly prevalent and warrant a fair and effective investigation. At this stage, the requirement of custodial interrogation, as projected by the State, cannot be ruled out. Consequently, no ground is made out for extending the concession of anticipatory bail to the petitioner.

Consequently, the present petition is dismissed.

It is clarified that the observations made herein are confined to the adjudication of the present petition and shall not be construed as an expression of opinion on the merits of the case.