A) ABSTRACT / HEADNOTE

The Supreme Court examined the territorial jurisdiction and nature of the complaint filed under Sections 420, 120B, and 34 of the IPC. The primary contention involved whether an FIR registered in Arunachal Pradesh, for an alleged cheating and conspiracy case pertaining to property located in Rajasthan, could be maintained. The Rajasthan High Court quashed the FIR on grounds of lack of territorial jurisdiction and the civil nature of the dispute, which was upheld by the Supreme Court. The judgment underscored that no cognizable offense was evident, as the dispute arose from a civil/commercial agreement. The judgment emphasized the principle of jurisdictional propriety in criminal proceedings and clarified the scope of Section 482 of the CrPC.

Keywords:

• Quashing of FIR
• Territorial jurisdiction
• Civil dispute
• Cognizable offense
• Transfer of investigation

B) CASE DETAILS

i) Judgment Cause Title:
The State of Arunachal Pradesh v. Kamal Agarwal & Ors.

ii) Case Number:
Criminal Appeal No. 2136 of 2024

iii) Judgment Date:
April 18, 2024

iv) Court:
Supreme Court of India

v) Quorum:
Justice Vikram Nath and Justice K.V. Viswanathan

vi) Author:
Justice Vikram Nath

vii) Citation:
[2024] 4 S.C.R. 624; 2024 INSC 317

viii) Legal Provisions Involved:

• Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, Section 482
• Indian Penal Code, 1860, Sections 420, 120B, 34

ix) Judgments Overruled by the Case (if any):
None

x) Case is Related to Which Law Subjects:
Criminal law, Civil law

C) INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND OF JUDGMENT

The appeal arose from contradictory rulings by the Gauhati High Court and the Rajasthan High Court concerning the territorial jurisdiction and validity of an FIR registered in Arunachal Pradesh. The FIR alleged cheating and conspiracy regarding a property deal. The Gauhati High Court declined to quash the FIR, while the Rajasthan High Court found the dispute civil in nature and lacking territorial jurisdiction. The Supreme Court consolidated the appeals to resolve these conflicting findings and evaluate the FIR’s maintainability.

D) FACTS OF THE CASE

1. Background of the Transaction
   A proprietorship firm, M/s Shiv Bhandar, transferred ₹1 crore to accounts of the accused in 2016 for purchasing property in Jaipur, Rajasthan. Disputes arose over whether this was an advance payment for the sale or a loan.

2. Filing of FIR
   An FIR was filed in Pasi Ghat, Arunachal Pradesh, alleging cheating by the accused for failing to transfer property despite payment.

3. Multiple Legal Challenges

   • Three accused moved the Gauhati High Court, which dismissed their quashing petitions.
   • Five others moved the Rajasthan High Court, which quashed the FIR, citing lack of jurisdiction and the dispute’s civil nature.

4. Chargesheet and Cognizance
   The Arunachal Pradesh Police filed a chargesheet against eight individuals, and the Chief Judicial Magistrate of Pasighat took cognizance.

E) LEGAL ISSUES RAISED

1. Whether the FIR No. 227/2017 was maintainable, given the lack of territorial jurisdiction in Arunachal Pradesh.
2. Whether the dispute was of a civil nature, precluding criminal proceedings.
3. Whether the Rajasthan High Court’s decision to quash the FIR was legally tenable.

F) PETITIONER/APPELLANT’S ARGUMENTS

1. Territorial Jurisdiction
   The FIR was registered in Arunachal Pradesh because the complainant was located there. However, the entire cause of action occurred in Rajasthan.

2. Civil Dispute
   The transaction involved payment for property, making it a civil issue. Criminal law was inappropriately invoked to settle a contractual disagreement.

3. Lack of Evidence
   There was no written agreement to establish cheating. Moreover, part of the money was refunded, and properties were transferred.

G) RESPONDENT’S ARGUMENTS

1. Prima Facie Case of Cheating
   The respondents argued that they failed to receive the property despite full payment, constituting cheating under Section 420 IPC.

2. Jurisdiction Validity
   The respondents asserted the FIR’s registration in Arunachal Pradesh was proper, as the complainant was based there.

H) JUDGMENT

a. Ratio Decidendi:
The Supreme Court concluded that the dispute was purely civil. A reading of the FIR revealed no elements of cheating or conspiracy.

b. Obiter Dicta (if any):
None explicitly stated.

c. Guidelines (if any):

• FIRs should not be used to pursue civil disputes.
• Courts must examine territorial jurisdiction stringently.
• In cases of mixed jurisdiction, transfer instead of quashing may be appropriate, unless no offense is established.

I) CONCLUSION & COMMENTS

This judgment reiterates the boundary between civil and criminal remedies. By quashing the FIR, the Court curtailed the misuse of criminal law to enforce contractual claims. It reinforces territorial jurisdiction as a critical element in criminal litigation and emphasizes adhering to legal processes for dispute resolution.

J) REFERENCES

a. Important Cases Referred:

• State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal [(1992) Suppl. 1 SCC 335]

b. Important Statutes Referred:

• Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, Section 482
• Indian Penal Code, 1860, Sections 420, 120B, 34