Learned State Counsel v. Section 10/24 of the Emigration Act

Mr. Sanjay Kumar Chandel, learned counsel for the applicant.

Mr. Prabhat Kandpal, learned Brief Holder for the State.

Mr. Nikhil Kushwaha, learned counsel for respondent no. 2. prayer set-aside/quash

Present C-528 application is filed with 20.05.2025, chargesheet cognizance/summoning 07.07.2025 entire as well proceedings of Criminal Case No. 877 of 2024, State Vs. Yashpal Chauhan & Others, under Sections, under Sections 420, 467, 468, 120-B, 34 of IPC and Section 10/24 of the Emigration Act, 1983, pending in the court of learned Judicial Magistrate, Jaspur, District Udham Singh Nagar, on the basis of compromise between the parties.

Brief facts of the case are that an FIR was lodged by the complainant, wherein, it was alleged that one Yashpal Chauhan, who was friend of the father of the complainant and was residing at Ambala, induced his father that he has sent many persons to Canada, U.S. and U.K. under valid permitted visa and he would also send the complainant and for this purpose, total expenses would come to Rs. 15 Lakhs. Father of the complainant, on various occasions, gave money to Yashpal Chauhan, Isha Rana and the present applicant namely Krishna Nand Jha.

It is the case of the applicant that he is running a CSC Centre in Ambala. A total sum amounting to Rs. 7.75 Lakhs was deposited in the account of the applicant on different dates, which was immediately forwarded by the applicant in the account numbers given by one Sandeep Chauhan.

Compounding application is also filed in the matter wherein it is prayed to compound the offence between the parties under Sections 420, 467, 468, 120-B, 34 of IPC and Section 10/24 of the Emigration Act, 1983. the applicant 8. Learned counsel submits that the parties have amicably settled their dispute and have entered into a compromise.

Parties are virtually present before this Court and are duly identified by their respective counsels. Parties have also filed their respective affidavits stating the facts of is also compromise between submitted by the parties that they have entered into an agreement and the amount which was deposited in the account of the applicant has been returned back by the applicant to the complainant. them. It

Learned State Counsel raised a preliminary objection to the effect that the offences sought to be compounded are non- compoundable.

Hon’ble Supreme Court, in a catena of its judgments, has observed that in cases where because of the compromise arrived at between the parties, possibility of conviction is remote and bleak, the High Court may continuation of the same would cause great prejudice and injustice to the accused. proceedings criminal

The present criminal misc. application stands disposed of in the aforesaid terms. Ujjwal (Alok Mahra J.) 26.02.2026