Case Note & Summary
The Supreme Court of India heard two sets of appeals arising from the same First Information Report (FIR) No. 227 of 2017 registered at Police Station Pasi Ghat, District Siang East, Arunachal Pradesh. The FIR was lodged by Mr. Anil Agarwal, attorney holder for Mr. Okep Tayeng, proprietor of M/s Shiv Bhandar, against several accused persons for offences under Sections 420, 120B, and 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. The complainant alleged that the accused, including Chandra Mohan Badaya, Rajesh Natani, and others, had received Rs.1 Crore from the complainant in four instalments in July 2016 as full payment for the sale of land/building situated in Jaipur, Rajasthan, but later refused to transfer the property. The accused, on the other hand, claimed that the amount was a loan and that Chandra Mohan Badaya had repaid Rs.37 lakhs and executed two sale deeds in favour of the complainant's relatives. The FIR was registered in Arunachal Pradesh solely because the complainant's business was located there, while all accused were residents of Rajasthan, the property was in Rajasthan, and all transactions occurred in Rajasthan. During investigation, a chargesheet was filed against eight persons, and cognizance was taken by the Chief Judicial Magistrate in Arunachal Pradesh. Two sets of quashing petitions were filed: one before the Gauhati High Court by Chandra Mohan Badaya and others, which was dismissed on 24.06.2022, and another before the Rajasthan High Court by Kamal Agarwal and others, which was allowed on 23.05.2023, quashing the FIR and all proceedings. The State of Arunachal Pradesh appealed against the Rajasthan High Court's order, while Chandra Mohan Badaya appealed against the Gauhati High Court's order. The Supreme Court, after hearing the parties, held that the dispute was purely civil in nature, as there was no written agreement and the complainant's claim of cheating was not supported by any evidence of dishonest intention from the inception. The Court noted that the accused had explained repayment and transfer of properties, and the FIR did not disclose any cognizable offence. Additionally, the Court observed that no part of the cause of action arose in Arunachal Pradesh, as all parties, properties, and transactions were in Rajasthan. The Court quashed the FIR and all subsequent proceedings, allowing the appeals of the accused and dismissing the appeals of the State.
Headnote
A) Criminal Procedure Code - Quashing of FIR - Section 482 CrPC - Civil Dispute - The dispute pertained to transfer of Rs.1 Crore for purchase of land in Rajasthan, with no written agreement. The complainant alleged cheating, but the accused claimed it was a loan and had repaid part. The Supreme Court held that the matter was purely civil in nature and no cognizable offence was disclosed. (Paras 12-13) B) Territorial Jurisdiction - FIR Registration - Lack of Jurisdiction - All parties and properties were in Rajasthan; only the complainant's business address was in Arunachal Pradesh. The Court held that no part of the cause of action arose in Arunachal Pradesh, and the FIR was an abuse of process. (Paras 7-9, 14) C) Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Cheating - Section 420 IPC - Essential Ingredients - The FIR did not disclose any dishonest intention from the inception; the accused had explained repayment and transfer of properties. The Court held that the ingredients of cheating were not made out. (Paras 12-13)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the FIR and subsequent proceedings should be quashed on the ground that no part of the cause of action arose in Arunachal Pradesh and the dispute was purely civil in nature.
Final Decision
The Supreme Court allowed the appeals of the accused (Chandra Mohan Badaya and others) and dismissed the appeals of the State of Arunachal Pradesh. The FIR No.227 of 2017 and all subsequent proceedings were quashed.
Law Points
- Territorial jurisdiction
- Quashing of FIR
- Civil dispute vs criminal offence
- Cheating
- Section 482 CrPC
- Section 420 IPC
- Section 120B IPC
- Section 34 IPC
