BALWINDER SINGH @ BALWINDER SINGH MATTU v. CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION AND ANR

Judgment

#1. The petitioner has approached this Court under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 [“BNSS”] (corresponding to Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure [“CrPC”]), seeking partial

quashing of FIR No. RC0482025S0013 dated 11.12.2025, registered under Sections 61(2) read with Sections 143 and 318 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 [“BNS”]

#2. The petition is predicated on a settlement between the petitioner and respondent No.2, who was the complainant in the FIR.

#3. The allegations in the FIR pertain to trafficking of certain persons and cheating. It is alleged that respondent No. 1, the Central Bureau of CRL.M.C. 2841/2026 Page 1 of 10 Investigation [“CBI”], received information regarding certain young Indians being induced to migrate to the United States of America on the promise of better employment opportunities and an improved livelihood. It is further alleged that such individuals were induced to pay substantial sums of money to “traffickers/travel agents” for facilitating their travel, immigration, and employment in the USA. However, instead of lawful migration, the victims were allegedly made to enter the United States illegally through clandestine routes.

#4. The present FIR concerns one such individual, i.e. respondent No. 2 herein, who lodged a complaint dated 24.11.2025. He stated therein that the accused persons, including the present petitioner, induced him to pay a sum of Rs. 25,00,000/-, on the assurance of arranging a work visa and securing employment in the United States of America, which was paid to the accused persons either in cash or through banking channels in January

#5. The complainant was thereafter provided an air ticket from Delhi to Cairo, Egypt, and subsequently illegally transported and shifted to Managua in the Republic of Nicaragua. From there, he was allegedly facilitated to enter the United States of America through illegal entry routes, commonly referred to as “Dunki routes” [also described in the FIR as “Donkey Routes”]. However, he was apprehended by the authorities of the United States of America at the border and, thereafter deported to India on 16.02.2025. It is on the basis of these allegations that the present FIR has been registered.

#6. Mr. Dhruv Dwivedi, learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that the petitioner has since settled the matter with respondent No. 2 – CRL.M.C. 2841/2026 Page 2 of 10 complainant, and that a Panchayati Compromise Deed dated 28.03.2026, duly signed by both the petitioner and respondent No. 2, has been placed on record. It is submitted that the said compromise deed does not contemplate any monetary settlement and merely records understanding that the complainant shall cooperate in seeking quashing of the aforesaid FIR. Mr. Dwivedi further submits that there is no prima facie material against the petitioner in the present case, and that the petitioner was only engaged in providing legitimate travel agency services, for which he received a sum of Rs. 1,50,000/- towards ticket expenses.

#7. Mr. Mukul Katyal, learned counsel appearing for the CBI on advance notice, opposes the request for quashing of the aforesaid FIR, submitting that this is not a case where this Court ought to exercise its inherent jurisdiction under Section 528 of the BNSS. He submits that the allegations are of a serious nature, involving the alleged inducement of vulnerable individuals to migrate abroad on the basis of false assurances of employment, and disclose a broader pattern of organised activity which necessitates a detailed and thorough investigation. Such offences, it is contended, cannot be treated as private or commercial disputes, amenable to quashing merely on the basis of an arrangement between the parties. He further submits that the investigation in the present case is still ongoing and is likely to be concluded within the next three months.

#8. The power of this Court to quash criminal proceedings, even in respect of non-compoundable offences, is well settled. In Gian Singh v. CRL.M.C. 2841/2026 Page 3 of 10 State of Punjab & Anr.1 and Narinder Singh & Ors. v. State of Punjab & Anr.2, the Supreme Court has consistently held that the power to quash criminal proceedings can be exercised, particularly in cases where the dispute is predominantly private in nature and the criminal element is merely incidental, as opposed to cases involving heinous or serious offences having a wider societal impact.

#9. The Supreme Court, in Gian Singh has held as follows: “58. Where the High Court quashes a criminal proceeding having regard to the fact that the dispute between the offender and the victim has been settled although the offences are not compoundable, it does so as in its opinion, continuation of criminal proceedings will be an exercise in futility and justice in the case demands that the dispute between the parties is put to an end and peace is restored; securing the ends of justice being the ultimate guiding factor. No doubt, crimes are acts which have harmful effect on the public and consist in wrongdoing that seriously endangers and threatens the well-being of the society and it is not safe to leave the crime-doer only because he and the victim have settled the dispute amicably or that the victim has been paid compensation, yet certain crimes have been made compoundable in law, with or without the permission of the court. In respect of serious offences like murder, rape, dacoity, etc., or other offences of mental depravity under IPC or offences of moral turpitude under special statutes, like the Prevention of Corruption Act or the offences committed by public servants while working in that capacity, the settlement between the offender and the victim can have no legal sanction at all. However, certain offences which overwhelmingly and predominantly bear civil flavour having arisen out of civil, mercantile, commercial, financial, partnership or such like transactions or the offences arising out of matrimony, particularly relating to dowry, etc. or the family dispute, where the wrong is basically to the victim and the offender and the victim have settled all disputes between them amicably, irrespective of the fact that such offences have not been made compoundable, the High Court may within the framework of its inherent power, quash the criminal proceeding or criminal complaint or FIR if it is satisfied that on the face of such settlement, there is hardly any likelihood of the offender being convicted and by not quashing the criminal proceedings, justice