Travel Agency Complaint at HighCourt Chandigarh where Punjab and Haryana High Court Dismisses Complaint Against Overseas Travel Agency Over Canada Study Arrangements.If a travel agency has cheated, defrauded, or provided deficient service, you generally do not start directly at a High Court. Indian High Courts typically deal with criminal quashing petitions, bail matters, or Public Interest Litigations (PILs) regarding illegal agents, rather than direct consumer claims or individual service disputes.

The Punjab and Haryana High Court dismissed Gurmeet Singh’s plea challenging the rejection of his criminal complaint against an overseas travel agency over his daughter’s Canada study arrangements.

You can approach or file a legal matter regarding a fraudulent or deficient travel agent at the Punjab and Haryana High Court in Chandigarh through specific legal and consumer channels, depending on your case type.

Travel Agency Complaint at HighCourt

Introduction

Disputes involving overseas education consultancies can raise important questions about alleged misrepresentation, financial loss, documentary evidence and the legal requirements for initiating criminal proceedings.

In Gurmeet Singh v. Jain Overseas Travel Agency and Others, the Punjab and Haryana High Court examined a petition challenging the dismissal of a criminal complaint against an overseas travel agency and its associates. The complaint arose from arrangements made to send the petitioner’s daughter to Canada for higher studies.

The petitioner alleged that he had been misled about the nature of the college, the availability of the intended course, employment opportunities during studies and the possibility of obtaining a work permit after completing the course.

However, the Judicial Magistrate had dismissed the complaint after examining the evidence presented, and the revisional court subsequently upheld that decision.

In its judgment dated 24 September 2026, Justice Manisha Batra dismissed the petitioner’s plea under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS). The High Court found no illegality, perversity or jurisdictional error in the orders passed by the courts below.

The judgment highlights the importance of producing relevant evidence, examining material witnesses, identifying the specific documents alleged to be forged, and explaining delays when pursuing a criminal complaint.

Case Details

• Case Title: Gurmeet Singh v. Jain Overseas Travel Agency and Others
• Case Number: CRM-M-30376-2026 (O&M)
• Court: Punjab and Haryana High Court, Chandigarh
• Date of Decision: 24 September 2026
• Judge: Hon’ble Mrs. Justice Manisha Batra
• Provision Invoked: Section 528, Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023
• Original Complaint: Gurmeet Singh v. Jain Overseas Travel Agency and Others
• Original IPC Provisions Invoked: Sections 420, 468, 406, 467, 465, 471, 120-B and 506 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860
• Final Outcome: Petition dismissed.

Background of the Case

The petitioner, Gurmeet Singh, was a retired Subedar from the Indian Army. In 2018, he wanted to send his daughter, Navneet Kaur, to Canada for higher studies.

According to the complaint, he approached Sumit Jain, who operated Jain Overseas Travel Agency, and his associate Shivani in April 2018.

The petitioner alleged that they assured him that his daughter would be admitted to a government college in Canada where the fees would be comparatively low. He further claimed that she would be permitted to work 20 hours per week alongside her studies and would receive a three-year work permit after completing the course, potentially leading to permanent residency.

An offer letter from Coquitlam College was obtained, and the petitioner stated that he was charged ₹21,000 for it. According to his complaint, the institution had been represented to him as a government college.

The petitioner subsequently raised a bank loan of ₹6,97,420 and remitted the amount to Supreme Security. His daughter received her visa on 1 August 2018 and travelled to Canada on 29 August 2018.

What Did the Petitioner Allegedly Discover in Canada?

According to the petitioner, his daughter discovered after arriving in Canada that Coquitlam College was a private institution with high fees. He also alleged that the course she wanted was unavailable and that she was not permitted to work as he had expected.

The petitioner claimed that he had to arrange additional funds over time, including ₹1,72,000 in December 2019.

He stated that his total expenditure towards the fees of the two colleges attended by his daughter amounted to ₹66,33,218. According to his account, he had to sell his old house, mortgage his new house, obtain a bank loan and arrange ₹38,00,729 through relatives living abroad.

These figures and allegations formed part of the petitioner’s case before the courts. They should not be treated as findings that the respondents had committed fraud or were legally responsible for the entire claimed expenditure.

Filing of the Criminal Complaint

The petitioner stated that he approached the police but no action was taken on his complaint. He subsequently filed a criminal complaint on 18 November 2023.

The complaint invoked Sections 420, 468, 406, 467, 465, 471, 120-B and 506 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, alleging offences including cheating, criminal breach of trust, forgery, use of forged documents, criminal conspiracy and criminal intimidation.

The Judicial Magistrate First Class, Bholath, dismissed the complaint on 17 December 2024 under Section 203 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

The petitioner then filed a revision petition, which was dismissed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Kapurthala, on 9 April 2026.

Thereafter, he approached the Punjab and Haryana High Court challenging both orders.

Why Did the Magistrate Dismiss the Complaint?

The Magistrate considered the petitioner’s statement, the testimony of three other witnesses and the documents placed on record.

Several circumstances influenced the decision.

1. Non-Examination of the Daughter as a Material Witness

The Magistrate observed that the petitioner’s daughter was the most material witness because she had travelled to Canada and was in a position to explain what representations had been made to her and what she discovered after arriving there.

Despite being available, she had not been examined.

The Magistrate considered this omission while assessing the complaint and the evidence presented in support of it.

Importantly, the High Court later clarified that the daughter’s non-examination was not treated as the sole ground for dismissal. It was one of several circumstances considered collectively.

2. Verification of the College and Course

The Magistrate also observed that the petitioner and his daughter were educated persons and could have verified the college’s background before paying substantial amounts.

The offer letter from Coquitlam College had been obtained at the petitioner’s own request, according to the record considered by the Court.

This circumstance formed part of the Magistrate’s assessment of the material available at the complaint stage.

3. Findings of the Police Inquiry

The judgment records that an inquiry conducted by the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Criminal Investigation, Kapurthala, found that the daughter had selected the college and course herself.

The inquiry also recorded that she had failed to obtain a work permit because she had failed in three semesters, rather than because of any fault attributed to the respondents.

The High Court considered these findings as part of the overall factual background. It did not independently conduct a trial to determine criminal liability.

4. Absence of Specific Material Regarding Forgery

The Magistrate found that the complaint did not identify sufficient material establishing forgery for the purposes of Sections 465, 467, 468 and 471 IPC.

The High Court later observed that no particular forged document had been specifically identified to sustain the forgery allegations.

5. Delay in Approaching the Authorities

The Magistrate also considered the time that had elapsed between the alleged discovery of the true circumstances in Canada and the filing of the criminal complaint.

According to the petitioner’s own case, his daughter had learned about the college in 2018. However, the police were first approached in 2022, and the criminal complaint was filed in November 2023.

The delay was considered one of the circumstances relevant to the assessment of the complaint.

Petitioner’s Arguments Before the High Court

The petitioner, who initially appeared in person, was subsequently provided legal aid through the appointment of an advocate as amicus curiae.

His counsel argued that the petitioner had been dishonestly induced from the outset by the alleged false representation that Coquitlam College was a government institution.

It was contended that these allegations could disclose offences of cheating and criminal conspiracy.

The petitioner also argued that the courts below had conducted what amounted to a mini-trial at the stage of considering whether process should be issued against the respondents.

According to his submissions, the Magistrate should have confined the examination to whether a prima facie case existed rather than undertaking an extensive assessment of the evidence.

The petitioner further contended that:

• The non-examination of his daughter should not have been treated as a decisive factor.
• The delay in filing the complaint was explained by the COVID-19 pandemic and his daughter’s circumstances abroad.
• The courts had failed to give appropriate consideration to documentary material, including bank statements, the offer letter and the police complaint.
• The revisional court had mechanically affirmed the Magistrate’s order.

In support of his arguments, counsel relied on Nagawwa v. Veeranna Shivalingappa Konjalgi, (1976) 3 SCC 736, and Pepsi Foods Ltd. v. Special Judicial Magistrate, (1998) 5 SCC 749.

What Did the High Court Hold?

Justice Manisha Batra examined the scope of the High Court’s inherent jurisdiction under Section 528 of the BNSS and the findings recorded by the courts below.

The Court explained that it does not sit as an appellate court over such findings or ordinarily reappreciate the evidence as though hearing the matter afresh.

Interference in the exercise of inherent jurisdiction is warranted where the findings are shown to be perverse, based on no material, or affected by illegality or jurisdictional error.

After examining the record, the High Court found no such defect in the impugned orders.

1. The Daughter’s Testimony Was Material to the Allegations

The Court observed that the daughter was in a position to explain the representations allegedly made to her and the actual circumstances she encountered in Canada.

The Magistrate had considered her non-examination alongside the petitioner’s conduct, the police inquiry and the absence of specific material supporting the forgery allegations.

The High Court therefore rejected the contention that the complaint had been dismissed solely because the daughter was not examined.

2. The Forgery Allegations Lacked Specific Supporting Material

The Court noted that no particular forged document had been identified to support the allegations under Sections 465, 467, 468 and 471 IPC.

This was an important consideration in assessing whether the courts below had acted unlawfully in refusing to proceed with the complaint.

3. The Delay Was Not Adequately Explained

The petitioner relied on the COVID-19 pandemic to explain the delay.

However, the High Court noted that, according to his own case, the alleged misrepresentation had become apparent when his daughter reached Canada in 2018, before the pandemic.

The police were approached only in 2022, and the criminal complaint was filed in November 2023.

The Court found no reason to take a different view from the Magistrate, who had considered the substantial delay as one of the circumstances casting doubt on the complaint.

4. The Revisional Court Had Independently Considered the Matter

The High Court rejected the argument that the revisional court had mechanically affirmed the Magistrate’s order.

It observed that the revisional court had independently noted that the material established that the petitioner had sent his daughter to Canada for studies and paid the required fees, but that the elements of cheating had not otherwise been established by the material placed on record.

The High Court found that the revisional court’s reasoning was consistent with the findings of the Magistrate.

Supreme Court Precedents: Nagawwa and Pepsi Foods

The petitioner relied on two Supreme Court decisions concerning the issuance of process against an accused person in criminal proceedings.

In Nagawwa v. Veeranna Shivalingappa Konjalgi and Pepsi Foods Ltd. v. Special Judicial Magistrate, the Supreme Court recognised that summoning an accused is a serious matter and that a Magistrate must apply judicial mind to the material before issuing process.

The Punjab and Haryana High Court noted that these decisions also recognise that process may be refused where, even if the allegations are taken at face value, they are inherently improbable or do not disclose sufficient grounds for proceeding.

The High Court held that the Magistrate had applied this approach to the material before him and that no basis for interference had been established.

The judgment therefore turned on the adequacy of the material presented and the limits of the High Court’s inherent jurisdiction, rather than on a determination of criminal guilt after trial.

Final Decision of the Punjab and Haryana High Court

After considering the submissions and the record, the High Court found no illegality, perversity or jurisdictional error in the orders passed by the Magistrate and the revisional court.

The petition under Section 528 of the BNSS was dismissed as devoid of merit.

Consequently, the earlier dismissal of the criminal complaint remained undisturbed.

The decision did not amount to a criminal trial resulting in a conviction or acquittal. Rather, it upheld the refusal to proceed with the complaint on the material that had been presented to the courts.

Legal Significance of the Judgment

1. Material Witnesses Can Be Important in Complaint Proceedings

The judgment highlights the importance of identifying and presenting witnesses who can directly explain the alleged representations and events.

Where a person is central to the transaction and the alleged misrepresentation, the absence of that person’s testimony may be considered alongside the other evidence.

However, the judgment does not establish that failure to examine a particular witness must invariably result in dismissal of a complaint.

2. Specificity Matters in Allegations of Forgery

The Court’s discussion of the absence of a specifically identified forged document illustrates the importance of clearly identifying the document and explaining the basis of the forgery allegation.

General assertions of forgery may not, by themselves, establish sufficient grounds for criminal proceedings.

3. Delay May Be Considered Alongside Other Circumstances

The Court considered the period between the alleged discovery of the problem and the filing of the complaint.

Its reasoning was based on the particular timeline recorded in the judgment. It should not be understood as establishing that every delayed complaint is necessarily unsustainable.

4. Inherent Jurisdiction Is Not a Fresh Trial

The judgment explains that the High Court’s inherent jurisdiction is not intended to provide an unrestricted rehearing of the evidence.

Interference requires a recognised legal basis, such as perversity, lack of supporting material, illegality or jurisdictional error.

5. Alleged Financial Loss Does Not Automatically Establish a Criminal Offence

The petitioner described substantial expenditure associated with his daughter’s education in Canada.

However, the existence of expenditure or an unsatisfactory educational experience does not, by itself, establish every element of cheating, forgery, criminal breach of trust or conspiracy.

Whether criminal proceedings are justified depends on the allegations, supporting material and applicable legal requirements.

Practical Takeaways for Families Using Overseas Education Consultants

Families considering overseas education arrangements may find the following precautions useful:

• Independently verify whether an institution is public or private.
• Confirm that the intended course is available and that the institution’s admission terms are accurate.
• Check current work-permit and immigration rules through official sources rather than relying exclusively on verbal assurances.
• Obtain written agreements, receipts, offer letters and a clear breakdown of consultancy charges.
• Preserve bank statements, remittance records, emails, messages and other relevant communications.
• If a misrepresentation is suspected, seek advice promptly and preserve the evidence supporting the complaint.
• Where criminal proceedings are contemplated, identify the specific acts alleged, the relevant documents and the witnesses with direct knowledge of the events.

These are general precautions and not findings made by the Court about the conduct of any particular overseas education consultancy.

Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs)

1. What was the decision in Gurmeet Singh v. Jain Overseas Travel Agency?

The Punjab and Haryana High Court dismissed the petition on 24 September 2026, finding no illegality, perversity or jurisdictional error in the orders dismissing the criminal complaint and the subsequent revision.

2. Why did Gurmeet Singh file a criminal complaint?

He alleged that he had been misled about the nature of Coquitlam College and the educational and employment opportunities available to his daughter in Canada.

3. How much expenditure did the petitioner claim?

He claimed to have spent ₹66,33,218 towards fees at the two colleges attended by his daughter, in addition to describing other financial arrangements. This was his claim, not a judicial finding that the respondents were liable for that amount.

4. Why was the daughter’s testimony important?

The courts considered her a material witness because she could explain the alleged representations and what she discovered after reaching Canada.

5. Why did the High Court consider the delay relevant?

The judgment records that the alleged problem became apparent in 2018, the police were approached in 2022, and the criminal complaint was filed in November 2023. The Court found no reason to disturb the Magistrate’s assessment of this delay as one of several relevant circumstances.

6. Did the High Court find the respondents guilty or innocent after trial?

No. The Court considered whether the orders dismissing the complaint warranted interference. It did not conduct a criminal trial or deliver a verdict on guilt after trial.

7. What is Section 528 of the BNSS?

Section 528 preserves the inherent powers of the High Court to make orders necessary to give effect to orders under the Sanhita, prevent abuse of the process of a court, or otherwise secure the ends of justice.

8. What was the final legal outcome?

The High Court dismissed the petition and left undisturbed the Magistrate’s order dismissing the criminal complaint and the revisional court’s order affirming that dismissal.

Conclusion

The decision in Gurmeet Singh v. Jain Overseas Travel Agency and Others underscores the importance of supporting criminal allegations with relevant evidence and of examining the material witnesses, documents and circumstances surrounding a disputed transaction.

The Punjab and Haryana High Court found that the Magistrate and revisional court had considered the material placed on record, including the daughter’s non-examination, the findings of the police inquiry, the absence of specific material identifying forged documents and the delay in approaching the authorities.

Finding no illegality, perversity or jurisdictional error, the High Court dismissed the petition on 24 September 2026.

The judgment serves as a reminder that challenging the dismissal of a criminal complaint requires more than disagreement with the lower courts’ assessment. The petitioner must establish a legally recognised basis for the High Court to exercise its inherent jurisdiction.

Source: Gurmeet Singh v. Jain Overseas Travel Agency and Others, CRM-M-30376-2026 (O&M), decided on 24 September 2026, Punjab and Haryana High Court at Chandigarh.

Disclaimer: This article is intended for general legal information and educational purposes. It is based on the uploaded judgment and does not constitute legal advice. Allegations described in the complaint should not be treated as proven facts or as findings of criminal guilt.

By Satish Mishra Adv (99888-17966)