Summary
A disputed money advance and alleged failure to transfer Jaipur property did not disclose cheating on the FIR’s allegations. The purpose of the undocumented payments and competing repayment or property-transfer accounts belonged to civil adjudication. The record also disclosed no relevant offence connection with Arunachal Pradesh beyond the complainant firm’s address. The Court quashed the entire FIR and consequential proceedings, allowed the accused’s appeal and dismissed the State’s three appeals.
Issues
- Whether the alleged money/property transaction disclosed a cognizable cheating offence.
- Whether the proceedings had a sufficient territorial connection with Arunachal Pradesh.
- Whether quashing extended to all accused despite one accused’s earlier unsuccessful challenge.
Provisions considered
- Sections 420, 120B and 34, Indian Penal Code, 1860The FIR alleged non-performance of a disputed property/money arrangement, without factual ingredients establishing the charged criminal conduct; the dispute was held civil on this record. (¶¶ 2, 6, 7, 8, 12, 13, 14, 15)
- Article 136, Constitution of IndiaCase-wide quashing relief was preserved for an accused whose earlier petition failed and SLP was not pressed, considering later chargesheet material and the common finding that no offence was made out. (¶¶ 16, 17)
Held
- The parties disputed whether the money was a loan or advance for property, with no written document establishing its purpose. The complainant alleged refusal to convey, rather than that the property did not exist or had already been transferred elsewhere. On the pleaded facts, contractual enforcement and accounting issues required civil adjudication and did not establish cheating. (¶¶ 5.1, 6, 12, 13)
- The accused’s asserted repayments and transfers were themselves matters for evidence. Even without accepting that defence as proved, the Court found the FIR did not disclose a cognizable offence. Its decision therefore was not a final civil accounting determination in the accused’s favour. (¶¶ 12, 13)
- The alleged property and transactions centred on Rajasthan, and the complainant firm’s Arunachal Pradesh address supplied no other relevant offence connection on this record. A territorial defect alone might warrant transfer in another case, but no transfer was called for because no offence was disclosed here. (¶¶ 7, 8, 14, 15)
- The Court considered the chargesheet and the earlier proceedings involving Pawan Agarwal. Because the entire common prosecution was being quashed as civil, he could not alone remain prosecuted; the earlier unsuccessful challenge and withdrawn SLP did not lead the Court to disturb his favourable Rajasthan order in these circumstances. (¶ 16)
- The Gauhati High Court refusal to quash was set aside and Chandra Mohan Badaya’s appeal allowed. The entire FIR and consequential proceedings were quashed; all three State appeals from the Rajasthan orders were dismissed. (¶ 17)
Result
Accused’s appeal allowed and Gauhati High Court order set aside; entire FIR 227/2017 and consequential proceedings quashed. State’s three appeals dismissed.