LexTHE STATE OF ARUNACHAL PRADESH versus KAMAL AGARWAL & ORS. ETC
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
* Author [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 [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 bef
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.