Supreme Court of India
THE STATE OF ARUNACHAL PRADESHversusKAMAL AGARWAL & ORS. ETC
- Citation
- 2024 INSC 317
- Decided
- 18 April 2024
- Disposal
- Disposed off
- Bench
- VIKRAM NATH
Holding
The FIR was quashed because the complaint did not disclose any cognizable offence and the matter was a civil dispute falling within the territorial jurisdiction of Rajasthan, not Arunachal Pradesh.
Summary
The Supreme Court considered an FIR (Case No.227 of 2017) registered in Arunachal Pradesh alleging cheating under sections 420, 120B and 34 IPC in connection with a Rs 1 crore payment for land situated in Rajasthan. The accused contended that the dispute was purely civil, involving a loan or advance for property purchase, and that no part of the alleged offence occurred in Arunachal Pradesh, thereby lacking territorial jurisdiction. The Rajasthan High Court had quashed the FIR on these grounds, while the Gauhati High Court had dismissed a similar petition. The Court held that the complaint did not disclose any cognizable offence, was a civil commercial dispute, and that the appropriate forum was a civil suit in Rajasthan. Consequently, the Supreme Court set aside the Gauhati High Court’s order, allowed the appeal of Chandra Mohan Badaya, and quashed the FIR and all related proceedings, dismissing the State’s appeals.
Issues considered
- Whether the FIR registered in Arunachal Pradesh disclosed a cognizable offence warranting criminal investigation.
- Whether Arunachal Pradesh courts possessed territorial jurisdiction to register and investigate the alleged offences.
- Whether the dispute between the parties is civil in nature and therefore not amenable to criminal prosecution under sections 420, 120B and 34 IPC.
- Whether the Rajasthan High Court's order quashing the FIR should be upheld or set aside.
Legislation cited
- Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973s. 482
- Indian Penal Code, 1860s. 120B, s. 34, s. 420
Subjects
Quashing of FIRTerritorial jurisdiction for registration of FIRDispute civil in natureCheatingCognizable offenceTransfer the investigation or the trialCause of action
Judgment
[2024] 4 S.C.R. 624 : 2024 INSC 317
The State of Arunachal Pradesh
v.
Kamal Agarwal & Ors. Etc.
(Criminal Appeal No. 2136 of 2024)
18 April 2024
[Vikram Nath* and K.V. Viswanathan, JJ.]
Issue for Consideration
Matter pertains to correctness of the order passed by the
Rajasthan High Court quashing the FIR registered in Arunachal
Pradesh.
Headnotes
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – s. 482 – Quashing of FIR
– Territorial jurisdiction for registration of FIR – FIR registered
at Arunachal Pradesh for offences u/ss. 420/120B/34 IPC by
the complainant against accused persons – Complainant’s
case that accused refused to hand over the property despite
full payment for the sale of the land/building made by
complainant – Said property situated in Rajasthan as also the
address of accused is that of Rajasthan whereas address of
the complainant was address of the company in Arunachal
Pradesh – Three of the accused filed petition for quashing
the FIR before the Gauhati High Court and the same was
dismissed – Five others filed writ petitions for quashing of
the same FIR before the Rajasthan High Court and the same
was allowed – Correctness:
Held: Matter was purely civil in nature – It could not be said to
be a case of cheating – Simple reading of the FIR itself does
not disclose any cognizable offence for which the FIR should
be registered and maintained – Complaint lodged was not
worth being registered as a complaint and that too in the State
of Arunachal Pradesh – High Court of Rajasthan rightly found
considering all aspects of the matter that the offence, if any,
although no offence is made out, would be within the territorial
jurisdiction of Rajasthan and not Arunachal Pradesh – Normally,
in a given case where issue is of territorial jurisdiction, direction
could have been issued to transfer the investigation or the trial to
* Author
[2024] 4 S.C.R. 625
The State of Arunachal Pradesh v. Kamal Agarwal & Ors. Etc.
the State where the cause of action would lie but in the instant
case, no offence as such is made out – Entire FIR is quashed
and the consequential proceedings thereto – Rajasthan High
Court, in the subsequent petition moved by the respondent has
after noticing the proceedings initiated in Gauhati High Court
has given relief to the respondent and other respondents on
the ground that no cause of action arose in Arunachal Pradesh
– Hence, in exercise of the power under Art. 136, no inclination
to disturb the findings in favour of the respondent in the writ
petition by Rajasthan High Court – Order of the Gauhati High
Court set aside and the entire proceedings arising out of the
FIR quashed. [Paras 12-17]
Case Law Cited
State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal [1992] Supp. 3 SCR
735 : (1992) Suppl. 1 SCC 335 – referred to.
List of Acts
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Penal Code, 1980.
List of Keywords
Quashing of FIR; Territorial jurisdiction for registration of FIR;
Dispute civil in nature; Cheating; Cognizable offence; Transfer the
investigation or the trial; Cause of action.
Case Arising From
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal Nos.
2136-2138 of 2024
From the Judgment and Order dated 23.05.2023 of the High Court
of Judicature for Rajasthan at Jaipur in SBCRWP No. 987, 988 and
989 of 2022
Appearances for Parties
Siddharth Dave, Ms. Liz Mathew, Sr. Advs., Navneet R., P. Dalvi, Ms.
Mallika Aggarwal, N. Bhardwaj, Abhimanyu Tewari, Ms. Eliza Bar,
Shree Pal Singh, Ms. Sanya Kaushal I, Ms. A Kaul, Vishal Meghwal,
Milind Kumar, Mrs. Padhmalakshmi Iyengar, Ms. Yashika Bum, Ms.
Neha Kapoor, Jagdish Chandra Solanki, Anuj Bhandari, Yuvraj Singh
R., Rajat Gupta, Advs. for the appearing parties.
626 [2024] 4 S.C.R.
Digital Supreme Court Reports
Judgment / Order of the Supreme Court
Judgment
Vikram Nath, J.
Leave granted.
2. Both the above appeals arise out of the First Information Report1
registered as FIR Case No.227 of 2017 at Police Station Pasi Ghat,
District Siang East, Arunachal Pradesh for offences under section
420/120B/34 Indian Penal Code, 18602 lodged by Mr. Anil Agarwal
attorney holder for Mr. Okep Tayeng, the proprietor of M/s Shiv
Bhandar. This FIR was registered against several named accused,
details of which will be dealt with at a later stage and additional
names surfaced during investigation.
3. Three of the accused namely Chandra Mohan Badaya and
Respondent Nos.3 and 4 namely Shashi Natani and Rajesh Natani
filed a petition for quashing the FIR before the Gauhati High Court
registered as Criminal Petition No.91 of 2021. The said petition
was dismissed by Gauhati High Court by judgment and order dated
24.06.2022. Aggrieved by the same, SLP (Crl.) No.7301 of 2022 has
been filed by Chandra Mohan Badaya. Five other co-accused filed writ
petitions before the Rajasthan High Court also praying for quashing
of the same FIR No.227 of 2017. The details of three petitions filed
before the Rajasthan High Court are as follows:
Accused Writ Petition No.
1. Kamal Agrawal Writ Petition No.987 of 2022
2. Hemani Agrawal Pg. No.227 of SLP(Crl.) No.8663-
8665 of 2023
3. Manish Kumar Tambi Writ Petition No.988 of 2022
4. Alpana Tambi Pg. no.246 of SLP (Crl.) No.
8663-8665 of 2023
5. Pawan Agrawal Writ Petition No.989 of 2022
Pg. no.265 of SLP (Crl.) No.
8663-8665 of 2023
1 FIR
2 IPC
[2024] 4 S.C.R. 627
The State of Arunachal Pradesh v. Kamal Agarwal & Ors. Etc.
4. These three petitions were allowed by the Rajasthan High Court vide
judgment dated 23.05.2023. Aggrieved by the same, the State of
Arunachal Pradesh has filed three Special Leave Petition Nos.8663-
8665 of 2023. Interestingly the complainant did not come forward
to challenge the order of the Rajasthan High Court quashing the
proceedings. Since both the set of matters relate to same FIR, the
same have been taken up together and are being decided by this
common order.
5. Brief facts giving rise to the present appeals are as follows:
5.1. M/s Shiv Bhandar, the proprietorship concerned transferred
an amount of Rs.1 Crore in the year 2016 in the account of
Chandra Mohan Badaya, two of his proprietorships concerned
and Rajesh Natani in four equal transactions of 25 lakhs
each. According to the appellant Chandra Mohan Badaya,
the amount was transferred as a loan, however, according to
the complainant the said payments were made for purchase
of land/building situate between plot No.A-47 to A-55, Sikar
House, near Chandpole, Jaipur, Rajasthan. Relevant to
mention here that there is no written agreement with respect
to the purpose of the transfer of said amount, whether it
was a loan or an advance towards purchase of land/building
referred to above.
5.2. According to Chandra Mohan Badaya, out of Rs.75 lakhs
received by him and his two concerns, he repaid Rs.37 lakhs to
the complainant from his personal and proprietorship accounts
by way of bank transfer. This amount was repaid in 2016-2017.
Further, according to Chandra Mohan Badaya, he executed two
sale deeds with respect to two properties situate in Chaksu,
Jaipur in favour of wife (Smt. Shalini Agarwal) and sister-in-law
(Smt. Jaya Agarwal) , Shri Anil Agarwal, Power of Attorney
holder of the complainant proprietor. Although the total sale
consideration for both the sale deeds was Rs.1.08 Crores,
out of which an amount of Rs.27 lakhs each i.e. total Rs.54
lakhs only was received by the petitioner. These sale deeds
are dated 10.10.2016. It was much after all these transactions
that the FIR in question was lodged on 23.11.2017 against the
following persons:
628 [2024] 4 S.C.R.
Digital Supreme Court Reports
i) Sh. Chandra Mohan Badaya
ii) Sh. Rajesh Natani
iii) Smt. Shashi natani
iv) Sh. Kishan Badaya
v) Smt. Tina Badaya
vi) Smt. Sushila Devi Badaya
5.3. During investigation, some of the names mentioned in the FIR
were dropped and others were added. Finally, chargesheet was
submitted against eight persons:
i) Sh. Chandra Mohan Badaya
ii) Smt. Tina Badaya
iii) Sh. Rajesh Natani
iv) Sh. Pawan Agrawal
v) Sh. Kamal Agrawal
vi) Smt. Hemani Agrawal
vii) Sh. Manish Kumar tambi
viii) Ms. Alpana Tambi
5.4. On the basis of the said chargesheet, cognizance was taken
by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Senior Division, Pasighat,
East Siang district, Arunachal Pradesh, and a case bearing
GR No.225 of 2017 was registered.
5.5. As already noted above, two sets of petitions were filed before
two different High Courts namely Gauhati High Court and
Rajasthan High Court. The challenge before the High Court
was primarily on two grounds, firstly, that no part of offence
had been committed in Arunachal Pradesh as such there was
lack of complete territorial jurisdiction for registration of FIR in
Arunachal Pradesh. The Police ought not to have investigated
the said matter for the reason that all the accused persons
were residents of Rajasthan, the properties were situated in
Rajasthan, the transfer by the sale deed with respect to the
[2024] 4 S.C.R. 629
The State of Arunachal Pradesh v. Kamal Agarwal & Ors. Etc.
property was also in Rajasthan, even the power of attorney
holder and the complainant were residents of Rajasthan and
therefore, the FIR ought to be quashed on this ground alone.
5.6. The second ground taken was that even if it is assumed that
the State of Arunachal Pradesh would have jurisdiction to
entertain the FIR and investigate, it was purely a civil dispute
relating to transaction of funds and transfer of properties and
being purely a civil/commercial dispute, the lodging of the FIR
was just a misuse of the process of law and the same ought
to be quashed, in view of the law laid down in case of State of
Haryana vs. Bhajan Lal3. The Gauhati High Court dismissed
the petition for quashing which has given rise to the appeal
filed by Chandra Mohan Badaya whereas Rajasthan High Court
quashed the proceedings which has given rise to the appeals
filed by the State of Arunachal Pradesh.
6. Before entering into the arguments advanced by the parties, we
may briefly refer to the contents of the complaint being FIR No.227
of 2017. According to the complaint, Rajesh Natani and Chandra
Mohan Badaya contacted the complainant firm requesting for amount
of Rs.1 Crore for consideration /exchange of land/building situated
between Plot No.A-47 to A55, Sikar House, near Chandpole, Jaipur,
Rajasthan. The said amount was deposited in four instalments
on 19.07.2016, 20.07.2016, 22.07.2016 and 25.07.2016 in the
accounts of Shri Ram Enterprises, A.R. Properties and Colonisers,
Shashi Natani w/o Rajesh Natani and Chandra Mohan Badaya, as
full payment for the sale of the aforesaid land/building. Thereafter,
when the complainant visited the place of land/building, the accused
persons refused to hand over the same. As such, it was clear that the
accused persons had cheated resulting into suffering, mental agony,
and financial loss. The accused persons failed to fulfil the above
conditions of transferring the land. All the accused persons have
conspired to cheat/commit fraud with the applicant. All the accused
persons have earned huge amount through unlawful means and
instead of fulfilling their promises, they threatened the complainant
with consequences. Finding no other alternative, the FIR had been
lodged for taking appropriate action against the accused persons.
3 [1992] Supp. 3 SCR 735 : (1992) Suppl. 1 SCC 335
630 [2024] 4 S.C.R.
Digital Supreme Court Reports
7. The FIR mentions the address of the complainant Mr. Anil Agrawal
to be the address of the firm M/s Shiv Bhandar in Pasighat, East
Siang District, Arunachal Pradesh. The residential address of the
complainant Anil Agrawal is not given in the FIR. The address of all
the six accused named in the FIR is that of Jaipur City, Rajasthan.
The property for which the alleged payment of Rs.1 Crore is said to
have been made is also situate in Jaipur, Rajasthan. The transaction
of bank details is not mentioned in the FIR.
8. Apart from the fact that the complainant is said to be placed at
Arunachal Pradesh, no other fact relevant to the alleged offence is
said to be in or within the State of Arunachal Pradesh but still the FIR
had been registered there. Clearly, the reason for lodging the FIR
was that the accused persons were not willing to execute the sale
deed for which they had taken the sale consideration of Rs.1 Crore.
9. The Gauhati High Court dismissed the petitions for quashing on the
finding that no exceptional circumstances exist calling for quashing
of the proceedings. Whereas, the Rajasthan High Court proceeded
to quash the proceedings on the ground that no part of the cause
of action had arisen in the State of Arunachal Pradesh rather entire
cause of action was in the state of Rajasthan, hence, the Police/
Court in Arunachal Pradesh lacked territorial jurisdiction to entertain
the FIR and all subsequent proceedings.
10. Surprisingly, the complainant M/s Shiv Bhandar has not come forward
to challenge the order of the Rajasthan High Court. It is the State of
Arunachal Pradesh which has challenged the order of the Rajasthan
High Court.
11. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the
material on record in both the cases.
12. We are of the view that the matter was purely civil in nature. It was
a case of money advancing for which no written document was
executed to indicate its purpose or import as such whether it was a
loan advance or an advance payment for transfer of property being
land/building situate in Jaipur, is not borne out from any records.
Such claim of the complainant that it was for transfer of property
for land/building prescribed above, would be a matter of evidence
to be led and established in the Court of law rather than the police
investigating the same and finding out. It is not the case of complainant
[2024] 4 S.C.R. 631
The State of Arunachal Pradesh v. Kamal Agarwal & Ors. Etc.
as stated in FIR that the plot/land as alleged by them which was to
be transferred to them did not exist or had been sold or transferred
to somebody else and therefore, there was an element of cheating
by the accused persons. If the accused persons were not transferring
the land and if the complainant could establish an agreement/contract
with respect to the same in a Court of law, it ought to have filed a
civil suit for appropriate relief. Appellant Chandra Mohan Badaya
had already explained as to how he had already repaid Rs.37 lacs
through bank transaction and also transferred two properties worth
more than Rupees One Crore. All these aspects could be thrashed
out before a competent Civil Court. It could not be said to be a case
of cheating.
13. A simple reading of the FIR itself does not disclose any cognizable
offence for which the FIR should be registered and maintained.
Although Chandra Mohan Badaya appellant has sought to explain
that he had already returned Rs.37 lakhs by bank transfer to the
complainant and had further executed two transfer deeds in favour
of the wife and sister-in-law of Anil Agrawal, the power of attorney
holder which valued at total amount of more than Rs.1.45 Crores.
Even if we do not accept this contention as the same would be subject
matter of evidence, what we find is that the complaint lodged by the
respondent No.2 was not worth being registered as a complaint and
that too in the State of Arunachal Pradesh.
14. The High Court of Rajasthan had rightly found as a matter of fact
considering all aspects of the matter that the offence, if any, although
according to us, no offence is made out, would be within the territorial
jurisdiction of Rajasthan and not Arunachal Pradesh.
15. The State of Arunachal Pradesh ought to have been happy getting
rid of an unnecessary Criminal Case being registered and tried
in Arunachal Pradesh Why the State of Arunachal Pradesh has
approached this Court is also a question to be answered by the said
State when the complainant in a matter relating to civil/commercial
dispute is not coming forward to defend its FIR which has been
quashed by the Rajasthan High Court. Normally, in a given case
where issue is of territorial jurisdiction we could have directed to
transfer the investigation or the trial to the State where the cause
of action would lie but in the present case, we find that no offence
as such is made out.
632 [2024] 4 S.C.R.
Digital Supreme Court Reports
16. We are conscious of the fact that Pawan Agarwal, one of the
Respondents herein in Criminal Appeal arising out of SLP No.
8663-8665/2023, had earlier filed Criminal Petition No. 110/2021
under section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. before the
Gauhati High Court and the said petition was dismissed vide order
dated 26.11.2021. We are also conscious of the fact that SLP (Crl.)
No. 999/2022 filed by him was dismissed as not pressed before
this Court. However, today we are quashing the entire FIR Case
No. 227/2017 registered at Police Station Pasi Ghat, District Siang
East, Arunachal Pradesh and the consequential proceedings thereto.
Rajasthan High Court, in the subsequent petition moved by Pawan
Agarwal, has after noticing the proceedings initiated in Gauhati High
Court has given relief to Pawan Agarwal and other respondents on
the ground that no cause of action arose in Arunachal Pradesh.
It is also important to note that after the Gauhati High Court had
dismissed the Criminal Petition No. 110/2021 chargesheet was filed
and we have considered the same. We have found the dispute to
be of a civil nature and have quashed the FIR Case No. 227/2017.
Hence, in exercise of the power under Article 136 of the Constitution
of India we are not inclined to disturb the findings in favour of Pawan
Agarwal in SB Criminal Writ Petition No. 989/2022 by Rajasthan High
Court. Once proceedings are being quashed against all the other
accused named in the FIR and in the chargesheet and considering
the nature of findings we have recorded, proceedings against Pawan
Agarwal cannot alone continue.
17. We accordingly set aside the order of the Gauhati High Court and
allow the appeal of Chandra Mohan Badaya and quash the entire
proceedings arising out of FIR No.227 of 2017. We further dismiss
the three appeals filed by the State of Arunachal Pradesh.
Headnotes prepared by: Nidhi Jain Result of the case:
Appeals disposed of.
Search Indian case law
Ask in plain English, not just keywords. 25,000 AI words free, no card.
Try "Quashing of FIR"Sign in to search