Court Criticizes Police Handling of Immigration Fraud Case
The Chandigarh Police faced strong criticism from the judicial system for their handling of an immigration fraud case involving Rs 60,000. The court of Chief Judicial Magistrate Sachin Yadav rejected what is known as an 'untraced report' filed by the police and directed them to conduct a more thorough investigation into the matter.
Details of the Fraud Case
According to case records, the matter originated from a complaint filed by Madan Kumar, who alleged that Jaswinder Singh, an agent representing Havens Immigration Consultancy based in Chandigarh, had taken Rs 60,000 from him. The payment was made with the promise of securing employment and travel arrangements to Dubai for Kumar.
The complainant stated that the accused agent failed to deliver on his promises. Despite taking the substantial sum of money, Jaswinder Singh neither arranged for Kumar's travel abroad nor returned the funds when confronted about the failed agreement. This led Kumar to seek legal intervention and file a formal complaint with authorities.
Court Proceedings and Police Response
During recent court proceedings held in November 2025, complainant Madan Kumar appeared personally before the court and expressed his dissatisfaction with the police investigation. He informed the court that despite his repeated follow-ups and complaints, the police had failed to take effective action or locate the accused individual.
The investigating officer had submitted a report stating that multiple raids had been conducted at Jaswinder Singh's known address, but the accused was not found residing there. Based on these unsuccessful attempts to locate the suspect, the police had filed an untraced report with the court, essentially indicating they could not find the accused.
Judicial Intervention and Directives
Chief Judicial Magistrate Sachin Yadav firmly rejected the police's untraced report, observing that "instead of filing an untrace report, arrest warrants against the accused could have been taken." The court noted that if the accused had indeed absconded, the appropriate legal procedure would involve seeking arrest warrants rather than closing the investigation with an untraced report.
In its significant observation, the court stated that "prima facie, a fraud has been committed by the accused with the complainant on the pretext of sending him abroad." This clear acknowledgment of fraudulent activity underscored the seriousness of the case and the need for proper investigative follow-through.
The court found the initial investigation incomplete and unsatisfactory, ordering that the case file be sent back through the Senior Superintendent of Police (SSP), Chandigarh, for immediate further investigation. The Station House Officer (SHO) concerned has been directed to submit the final investigation report at the earliest possible date.
This judicial intervention highlights the importance of thorough police investigation in fraud cases and establishes that filing untraced reports cannot substitute for proper legal procedures like obtaining arrest warrants when suspects cannot be immediately located.
