Compromise Can't Wipe Out Criminal Liability In Cheating Case Involving Public Trust: Punjab & Haryana High Court

The Punjab and Haryana High Court has held that a compromise between the parties cannot extinguish criminal liability in cases of cheating involving public trust, observing that such offences transcend the realm of private disputes and strike at the integrity of public institutions.

The petitioner was accused for defrauding the complainant of ₹4.5 lakh by promising government employment.

While rejecting the pre-arrest bail, Justice Sumeet Goel said, "The petitioner, in a calculated and fraudulent manner, proceeded to defraud the complainant and his family members. The alleged compromise cannot wipe out the criminal liability in offences of cheating which affect public trust and are not merely private in nature. The delay in lodging the FIR is reasonably explained and does not dilute the case of the prosecution."

The FIR, registered, was lodged by complainants under under Sections 420 and 120-B of IPC by Gurvinder Singh and Amarjit Singh, who alleged that Gurpreet Singh, along with co-accused Lakhvir Singh, defrauded them of ₹4,50,000 by promising government employment. The complainants alleged that after collecting the money—part of which (₹1,40,000) was transferred directly to Gurpreet Singh's account—the accused failed to deliver on their promise and stopped responding to calls.

Counsel for the petitioner contended that the allegations were baseless and that the petitioner had no direct role in the offence, except that money was routed through his account by another co-accused. It was further submitted that a compromise dated August 29, 2025 had been reached with the complainants, under which the petitioner had repaid the amount received. The petitioner sought anticipatory bail on the ground that he was a poor labourer with no criminal antecedents and that custodial interrogation was unnecessary.

Opposing the plea, the State submitted that this was a third anticipatory bail petition without any substantial change in circumstances, rendering it procedurally untenable. On merits, the State contended that the allegations involved deliberate deception and fraud, that the petitioner's bank account was used to receive part of the cheated amount, and that custodial interrogation was essential to trace the money trail and uncover the full extent of the conspiracy.

The Court observed that though successive bail petitions are maintainable, they require demonstration of substantial change in circumstances, which was absent in this case.

The judge found that the FIR disclosed specific and serious allegations of cheating and conspiracy. It noted that the petitioner had received part of the defrauded amount and that the offence involved inducing innocent persons to part with money under the pretext of securing government jobs — an act which erodes public faith in the integrity of public recruitment processes.

"The nature of deception employed not only causes pecuniary loss to the victims but also undermines the sanctity of public administration, thereby eroding confidence in fairness and transparency in public employment/recruitment processes," the Court said.

Rejecting the plea based on compromise, the Court reiterated that:

“The alleged compromise cannot wipe out criminal liability in offences of cheating which affect public trust and are not merely private in nature.”

The Court emphasized that offences of cheating and conspiracy are not compoundable at the anticipatory bail stage and that repayment of money does not efface the offence once deception is prima facie established.

Mr. G.S. Verma, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Amit Goyal, Additional Advocate General, Punjab.

Title: Gurpreet Singh v. State of Punjab and others

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (PH) 421

Click here to read order