In a recent Supreme Court ruling, the case of State of Arunachal Pradesh vs. Chandra Mohan Badaya has been concluded, addressing the quashing of FIR and the jurisdiction issue. The judgment sheds light on the complexities of civil disputes and the delineation between civil and criminal matters. Learn about the key points and implications of this landmark legal decision.
Facts
- Chandra Mohan Badaya received Rs. 75 lakhs and repaid Rs. 37 lakhs to the complainant from personal accounts.
- All accused persons conspired to cheat and commit fraud with the applicant.
- Accused persons earned a significant amount through unlawful means but did not fulfill promises and threatened the complainant.
- Accused persons refused to hand over the land/building after the complainant visited the location.
- An amount of Rs. 1 Crore was transferred in equal transactions to Chandra Mohan Badaya, two of his proprietorship concerns, and Rajesh Natani.
- Disagreement regarding whether the transferred amount was a loan or for the purchase of a specific property.
- The matter involved petitions filed in separate High Courts – Gauhati High Court and Rajasthan High Court.
- Accused persons cheated resulting in suffering, mental agony, and financial loss to the complainant.
- The FIR was lodged much later after transactions took place against several individuals.
- Names in the FIR changed during the investigation, and eight persons were charged in the final chargesheet.
- Gauhati High Court dismissed the petition for quashing SLP (CRL.) NOS. 8663-8665 of 20232 proceedings
- Rajasthan High Court quashed the proceedings citing lack of territorial jurisdiction in Arunachal Pradesh
- Chandra Mohan Badaya appealed against the Gauhati High Court decision, State of Arunachal Pradesh appealed against Rajasthan High Court decision
- Details of the complaint being FIR No.227 of 2017 were briefly referenced
Also Read: Understanding the Legal Battle: Operation Mobilization India vs. State of Telangana
Issue
- The issue raised was whether the State of Arunachal Pradesh had jurisdiction to entertain the FIR and investigate the civil dispute regarding transaction of funds and transfer of properties.
- The argument presented was that the FIR was a misuse of the legal process as it involved a purely civil/commercial dispute.
- Reference was made to the case of State of Haryana vs Bhajan Lal to support the contention that the FIR should be quashed.
- The contention was that the FIR did not fall under the purview of a criminal offense but was rather a civil matter.
Also Read: Annapurneshwari Cotton Co. Legal Dispute
Analysis
- The FIR was registered in Arunachal Pradesh despite no relevant facts of the alleged offense being within the state.
- Accused persons were accused of not executing a sale deed after receiving Rs.1 Crore.
- The accused had already repaid Rs.37 lakhs and transferred properties worth over Rs.1 Crore.
- The High Court of Rajasthan determined that no cognizable offense was made out in the case.
- The offense, if any, would fall under the territorial jurisdiction of Rajasthan, not Arunachal Pradesh.
- The matter was deemed civil in nature and related to monetary transactions without clear documentation.
- Pawan Agarwal’s earlier petition in Gauhati High Court was dismissed, but the entire FIR and proceedings were ultimately quashed by the current judgment.
- The complainant M/s Shiv Bhandar did not challenge the Rajasthan High Court’s order, and the claim of cheating would require evidence in a court of law.
- 1.1
- The State of Arunachal Pradesh has approached the Court, but the complainant in a civil/commercial dispute has not defended the FIR which was quashed through an SLP (CRL).
- The findings in favor of Pawan Agarwal in SB Criminal Writ Petition No 989/2022 by Rajasthan High Court are not disturbed.
- Proceedings have been quashed against all other accused named in the FIR and chargesheet.
- Considering the nature of findings, the dispute is deemed to be of a civil nature.
- FIR Case No 227/2017 has been quashed.
- Even after Gauhati High Court dismissed Criminal Petition No 110/2021, chargesheet was filed and considered.
Also Read: Master Irshad v. Dr. Anindya Gupta: Negligence in Eye Surgery Case
Decision
- The Gauhati High Court’s order was set aside and the appeal of Chandra Mohan Badaya was allowed.
- The entire proceedings from FIR No.227 of 2017 were quashed.
- The appeals filed by the State of Arunachal Pradesh were dismissed.
- Proceedings against Pawan Agarwal cannot continue alone.
Case Title: THE STATE OF ARUNACHAL PRADESH Vs. KAMAL AGARWAL (2024 INSC 317)
Case Number: Crl.A. No.-002136-002138 / 2024
