Read Time: 08 minutes

Synopsis

The Supreme Court on April 18, 2024 expressed surprise at the State of Arunachal Pradesh filing a plea against the quashing of an FIR. The FIR was filed by a resident of the state for an offence of cheating related to the sale of a property in Rajasthan.

A bench of Justices Vikram Nath and K V Vishwanathan quashed the FIR and the entire proceedings arising out of it after finding that the dispute was purely of a civil nature.

"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," the bench said.

The State of Arunachal Pradesh was aggrieved by a decision of the Rajasthan High Court which quashed the FIR. In the same FIR, the Gauhati High Court had dismissed a similar plea by one of the accused.

The FIR, however, mentioned the address of the complainant Anil Agrawal to be the address of the firm M/s Shiv Bhandar in Pasighat, East Siang District, Arunachal Pradesh. The address of all the six accused named in the FIR was that of Jaipur City, Rajasthan. The property for which the alleged payment of Rs one Crore was said to have been made was also situate in Jaipur, Rajasthan.

The court noted that apart from the fact that the complainant was said to be placed at Arunachal Pradesh, no other fact relevant to the alleged offence was 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 one Crore," the bench said.

The Gauhati High Court had dismissed the petition for quashing the FIR on the ground that no exceptional circumstances existed for it.

The Rajasthan High Court, however. 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 the 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.

"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," the bench said.

The court also pointed out that appellants-accused 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," the bench said. 

The court said that normally, in a given case where issue is of territorial jurisdiction, it 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, no offence as such was made out. 

The bench upheld the order of the Rajasthan High Court and set aside the Gauhati High Court's order. It quashed the entire proceedings and dismissed appeals by the Arunachal Pradesh government.