IMPORTANT POINT
Claim for transfer of property for land/building, would be a matter of evidence to be led and established in Court of law rather than police investigating the same and finding out.

JUDGMENT :

Vikram Nath, J.

Leave granted.

2. Both the above appeals arise out of the First Information Report¹[FIR] 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[IPC] 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 before the Gauhati High Court registered as Criminal Petition No.91 of 2021. The said petition was dismissed by Gauhati High Court by judgment and order dated 24.06.2022. Aggrieved by the same, SLP (Crl.) No.7301 of 2022 has been filed by Chandra Mohan Badaya. Five other co-accused filed writ petitions before the Rajasthan High Court also praying for quashing of the same FIR No.227 of 2017. The details of three petitions filed before the Rajasthan High Court are as follows:

4. These three petitions were allowed by the Rajasthan High Court vide judgment dated 23.05.2023. Aggrieved by the same, the State of Arunachal Pradesh has filed three Special Leave Petition Nos.8663-8665 of 2023. Interestingly the complainant did not come forward to challenge the order of the Rajasthan High Court quashing the proceedings. Since both the set of matters relate to same FIR, the same have been taken up together and are being decided by this common order.

5. Brief facts giving rise to the present appeals are as follows:

5.1. M/s Shiv Bhandar, the proprietorship concerned transferred an amount of Rs.1 Crore in the year 2016 in the account of Chandra Mohan Badaya, two of his proprietorships concerned and Rajesh Natani in four equal transactions of 25 lakhs each. According to the appellant Chandra Mohan Badaya, the amount was transferred as a loan, however, according to the complainant the said payments were made for purchase of land/building situate between plot No.A-47 to A-55, Sikar House, near Chandpole, Jaipur, Rajasthan. Relevant to mention here that there is no written agreement with respect to the purpose of the transfer of said amount, whether it was a loan or an advance towards purchase of land/building referred to above.

5.2. According to Chandra Mohan Badaya, out of Rs.75 lakhs received by him and his two concerns, he repaid Rs.37 lakhs to the complainant from his personal and proprietorship accounts by way of bank transfer. This amount was repaid in 2016-2017. Further, according to Chandra Mohan Badaya, he executed two sale deeds with respect to two properties situate in Chaksu, Jaipur in favour of wife (Smt. Shalini Agarwal) and sister-in-law (Smt. Jaya Agarwal) , Shri Anil Agarwal, Power of Attorney holder of the complainant proprietor. Although the total sale consideration for both the sale deeds was Rs.1.08 Crores, out of which an amount of Rs.27 lakhs each i.e. total Rs.54 lakhs only was received by the petitioner. These sale deeds are dated 10.10.2016. It was much after all these transactions that the FIR in question was lodged on 23.11.2017 against the following persons:

i) Sh. Chandra Mohan Badaya

ii) Sh. Rajesh Natani

iii) Smt. Shashi natani

iv) Sh. Kishan Badaya

v) Smt. Tina Badaya

vi) Smt. Sushila Devi Badaya

5.3. During investigation, some of the names mentioned in the FIR were dropped and others were added. Finally, charge