The Supreme Court in SLP (Crl.) Nos. 8663-8665 of 2023 quashed an FIR registered in Arunachal Pradesh, finding that the case was a civil matter, not criminal, and lacked territorial jurisdiction. The dispute involved the transfer of Rs. 1 crore for the sale of land in Jaipur, Rajasthan, and the court held that no part of the alleged offense took place in Arunachal Pradesh. The Rajasthan High Court had previously quashed the proceedings, a decision upheld by the Supreme Court. The court ruled that the dispute should have been handled as a civil matter in Rajasthan and dismissed the appeals filed by the State of Arunachal Pradesh.

1. Background of the Case:

   • FIR No. 227/2017 was lodged at Pasi Ghat, Arunachal Pradesh, concerning a Rs. 1 crore payment made by M/s Shiv Bhandar to various individuals for land in Jaipur, Rajasthan.
   • The FIR alleged that the accused failed to deliver the property, resulting in accusations of cheating and conspiracy.
   • The complainant, Mr. Anil Agarwal, lodged the FIR through his attorney.

2. Petitions and Jurisdictional Issues:

   • Some accused, including Chandra Mohan Badaya, petitioned the Gauhati High Court for quashing the FIR, but it was dismissed.
   • Co-accused approached the Rajasthan High Court, which quashed the FIR, holding that the entire cause of action occurred in Rajasthan, not Arunachal Pradesh.
   • The State of Arunachal Pradesh challenged the Rajasthan High Court's order in the Supreme Court.

3. Supreme Court Findings:

   • The court ruled that the case was civil in nature, involving a dispute over money and property transactions.
   • There was no evidence of cheating or fraud, as alleged in the FIR.
   • Since the entire transaction and property were located in Rajasthan, the court held that the Arunachal Pradesh authorities lacked jurisdiction.
   • The court quashed the FIR and all related proceedings.

4. Civil Nature of Dispute:

   • The court emphasized that the matter should have been pursued in civil court for breach of contract, not through criminal proceedings.

Acts and Sections Discussed:

• Indian Penal Code, 1860:

  • Section 420 – Cheating and dishonestly inducing delivery of property.
  • Section 120B – Criminal conspiracy.
  • Section 34 – Acts done by several persons in furtherance of a common intention.

• Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973:

  • Section 482 – Powers of the High Court to quash proceedings to prevent abuse of the process of law.

Ratio Decidendi:
The Supreme Court quashed the FIR on two primary grounds:

1. Lack of Jurisdiction: No part of the alleged offense occurred in Arunachal Pradesh. The property, transaction, and parties were all located in Rajasthan, thus the FIR registered in Arunachal Pradesh was invalid.
2. Civil Dispute: The case involved a dispute over money and property, which is purely civil in nature. Criminal proceedings were not warranted, and the complainant should have sought remedy in a civil court.

Subjects:

Criminal Law, Civil Dispute, Jurisdiction, Property Law, FIR quashing, territorial jurisdiction, civil nature of dispute, property transaction, Indian Penal Code