Chandigarh: A senior constable from Patiala accused of taking ₹3 lakh from a man on the promise of securing him a government job has failed to get relief from the Punjab and Haryana High Court. The court refused to quash the FIR against the police official despite a compromise between the accused and the complainant. The court observed that the accused is a serving public servant and faces serious allegations of forging a government appointment letter and cheating a person with a false promise of employment. Such allegations, it held, cannot be treated as a purely private dispute and closed merely because the parties have reached a settlement.
Justice Shalini Singh Nagpal was hearing a petition filed by the senior constable seeking quashing of the FIR registered in connection with the alleged job scam. The accused is alleged to have promised a man a government job in exchange for ₹3 lakh. In its August 11 order, the court said that considering the manner in which the alleged offence was committed and the involvement of a public servant, there was no justification at this stage for exercising the court’s inherent powers to quash the FIR.
Promise of Government Job for ₹3 Lakh
The complainant works as a computer teacher at a private school. According to his complaint, he came into contact with the accused constable through his maternal uncle, a carpenter who had worked at the constable’s house. During the course of their interaction, the constable allegedly offered to arrange a government job for the complainant and demanded ₹3 lakh in return. According to the allegations, ₹1.50 lakh was to be paid in advance.
The complainant told the police that he paid the entire amount in two instalments, with the second payment made in December 2022. Later, the accused allegedly called him to the Sector 43 bus stand in Chandigarh. There, a man who was introduced as a former village head handed over an appointment letter to the complainant. He was allegedly told that he had secured a government position.
Appointment Letter Turns Out to Be Fake
The complainant later became suspicious about the authenticity of the appointment letter. Instead of the Narcotic Cell posting that he had allegedly been promised, the document mentioned the National Sample Survey Office in Delhi. The letter also contained spelling errors in names, further raising doubts about its authenticity.
According to the complaint, when the man went to the designated location to join his alleged posting, the accused constable accompanied him. However, the address mentioned in the appointment letter reportedly turned out to be a parking lot rather than a government office.
The complainant subsequently confronted the constable and demanded that his money be returned. He alleged that the accused refused to repay the amount. The complainant further alleged that the constable had previously cheated several people using a similar promise of arranging government employment. The court, however, has not made any final finding on the truth of these allegations, which will be examined during the legal proceedings.
Compromise Fails to End Criminal Case
The complainant and the accused entered into a compromise in May 2026. Following the settlement, the accused approached the High Court seeking quashing of the FIR. The court, however, held that the compromise was not sufficient to terminate the criminal proceedings in a case involving allegations of forgery and misuse of public position.
The bench noted that criminal cases having an overwhelmingly civil character, including certain commercial, matrimonial or family disputes, may in appropriate circumstances be quashed after the parties amicably settle their differences. However, offences involving forged government documents and fraudulent promises of government employment have a wider impact and cannot automatically be treated as private disputes.
Forgery of Government Documents Has Wider Impact
The court observed that if the allegations are ultimately proved at trial, they could have serious consequences. Forging government documents and using them to deceive people with promises of government employment affects more than the immediate complainant. Such conduct can undermine public confidence in government institutions and official recruitment processes.
The High Court therefore declined to interfere with the FIR and allowed the criminal proceedings to continue. The ruling does not establish the accused’s guilt, and the allegations will have to be tested through the investigation and trial process.
The decision makes clear that a settlement between the accused and complainant does not necessarily bring an end to criminal proceedings when the allegations involve a serving public servant, forged government documents and conduct that could have a broader impact on public trust. The FIR will consequently remain in force, and the case will proceed according to law.
About the author — Suvedita Nath is a science student with a growing interest in cybercrime and digital safety. She writes on online activity, cyber threats, and technology-driven risks. Her work focuses on clarity, accuracy, and public awareness.
