The State Of Arunachal Pradesh vs Kamal Agarwal

REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL APPEAL NOS. OF 2024 (Arising out of SLP(Crl.) Nos.8663-8665 of 2023)

THE STATE OF ARUNACHAL PRADESH …APPELLANT(S)

VERSUS KAMAL AGARWAL & ORS. ETC. …RESPONDENT(S)

WITH

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. OF 2024 (Arising out of SLP(Crl.) No. 7301 OF 2022)

CHANDRA MOHAN BADAYA …APPELLANT(S)

VERSUS THE STATE OFARUNACHAL PRADESH & ORS. …RESPONDENT(S)

JUDGMENT

VIKRAM NATH, J.

Leave granted.

Signature Not Verified Digitally signed by Neetu Khajuria Date: 2024.04.18 18:57:54 IST Reason: SLP (CRL.) NOS. 8663-8665 of 20232 Page 1 of 19

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

1 FIR 2 IPC SLP (CRL.) NOS. 8663-8665 of 20232 Page 2 of 19 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

SLP (CRL.) NOS. 8663-8665 of 20232 Page 3 of 19

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

SLP (CRL.) NOS. 8663-8665 of 20232 Page 4 of 19 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,

SLP (CRL.) NOS. 8663-8665 of 20232 Page 5 of 19 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:

i) Sh. Chandra Mohan Badaya

ii) Sh. Rajesh Natani

iii) Smt. Shashi natani

iv) Sh. Kishan Badaya

v) Smt. Tina Badaya

SLP (CRL.) NOS. 8663-8665 of 20232 Page 6 of 19 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

SLP (CRL.) NOS. 8663-8665 of 20232 Page 7 of 19 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

property was also in Rajasthan, even the power

of attorney holder and the complainant were

SLP (CRL.) NOS. 8663-8665 of 20232 Page 8 of 19 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

3 (1992) suppl. 1 SCC 335

SLP (CRL.) NOS. 8663-8665 of 20232 Page 9 of 19 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

SLP (CRL.) NOS. 8663-8665 of 20232 Page 10 of 19 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.

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

SLP (CRL.) NOS. 8663-8665 of 20232 Page 11 of 19 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

SLP (CRL.) NOS. 8663-8665 of 20232 Page 12 of 19 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

SLP (CRL.) NOS. 8663-8665 of 20232 Page 13 of 19 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 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

SLP (CRL.) NOS. 8663-8665 of 20232 Page 14 of 19 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

SLP (CRL.) NOS. 8663-8665 of 20232 Page 15 of 19 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

SLP (CRL.) NOS. 8663-8665 of 20232 Page 16 of 19 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.

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

SLP (CRL.) NOS. 8663-8665 of 20232 Page 17 of 19 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

SLP (CRL.) NOS. 8663-8665 of 20232 Page 18 of 19 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.

……………………………………J. (VIKRAM NATH)

…………………………………..J. (K.V. VISWANATHAN)

NEW DELHI

APRIL 18, 2024

SLP (CRL.) NOS. 8663-8665 of 20232 Page 19 of 19