Back
2020 Supreme(Raj) 110
IN THE HIGH COURT OF RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR BENCH
Sanjeev Prakash Sharma, J.
Pradeep Singh Chauhan and Ors. – Appellants
Versus
State of Rajasthan and Ors. – Respondents
S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No. 5227 of 2019
Decided On: 20-01-2020
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellants : Dinesh Yadav, Adv.
For the Respondents: Ramesh Chaudhary, PP and Vandana Sharma, Adv.
The territorial jurisdiction of a court to try an offence is determined by the place where the cause of action arose, and not necessarily the place where the agreement was initially entered into.
Headnote:
CRIMINAL JURISDICTION - SECTION 177 CR.P.C. - INTERPRETATION - CAUSE OF ACTION - TERRITORIAL JURISDICTION - CANCELLATION OF AGREEMENT - SALE OF PROPERTY - FIR QUASHED:
Fact of the Case:
Petitioners challenged an FIR registered against them for cheating and fraud, alleging that the FIR was based on false facts and that the dispute arose from a contract that was subsequently cancelled. The complainant alleged that the petitioners induced him to purchase land, took a large sum of money, but failed to deliver the land or provide the necessary documentation.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the original agreement for sale of property was entered into in Jaipur, but was subsequently cancelled by a cancellation agreement executed in Shivpuri (MP). The court held that the cause of action for the dispute arose in Shivpuri (MP), where the cancellation agreement was executed and the property was located.
Issues: 1. Whether the FIR was based on false facts and the dispute arose from a contract that was subsequently cancelled? 2. Whether the court in Jaipur had territorial jurisdiction to try the case?
Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on Section 177 Cr.P.C., which states that every offence shall ordinarily be inquired into and tried by a Court within whose local jurisdiction it was committed. The court interpreted the word "ordinarily" to mean that in normal course the case is required to be tried by the Court within whose jurisdiction the offence is committed.
Final Decision: The court quashed the FIR and set aside the criminal proceedings initiated by the Police and the concerned court at Jaipur, holding that they were without territorial jurisdiction. The court directed the complainant to file the complaint in the appropriate Court having territorial jurisdiction.
DECISION :
Sanjeev Prakash Sharma, J.
1. This case came up on an application for vacating the interim order dated 21/08/2019 passed by this Court whereby proceedings in FIR No. 395/2018, registered at Police Station Vaishali Nagar, Jaipur were stayed.
2. The contention of the petitioners is that the FIR, which was registered against them under Section 420, 406, 467, 468, 471, 384 and 120B IPC, is in relation to a dispute relating to terms of contract.
3. It is the case of the respondent-complainant that the petitioners have committed fraud and cheated him of his hard earned money.
4. The brief facts which have been mentioned by the complainant-respondent in the FIR are that he met petitioners who induced him for business and promised to sell 200 Bighas of land at Village Sujan, Tehsil Shivpuri, District Shivpuri (Madhya Pradesh) and in lieu of the said inducement took away an amount of Rs.1,66,62,855/- and the sale deed was also executed but physical possession of the land and mines was not given. The JBC was also not handed over to the complainant and the complainant was threatened of dire consequences including allegations to be levelled against him of rape of tribal woman. It was further stated that the accused-Lokendra Singh Rathore was known to the complainant and the accused-Pradeep Singh Chauhan was brother-in-law of Lokendra Singh Rathore who induced to the complainant and by hatching a criminal conspiracy taken away the huge amount from the complainant.
5. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that the said FIR was based on false facts while it was a case where an agreement to sale between the parties dated 31/03/2013. The sale was subsequently cancelled by the complainant and the accused-petitioners on 20/01/2015 and the FIR was lodged in the year 2018 at Jaipur where there was no cause of action. It is submitted that the agreement for sale was executed with regard to the land at Shivpuri (MP) and the stamp papers were also purchased from MP. The said agreement dated 31/03/2013 was subsequently cancelled by agreement for cancellation executed between the complainant and the petitioners by executing an agreement on 20/01/2015 at Shivpuri (MP). In the said cancellation agreement, which has also been placed on record, it was specifically mentioned that the earlier agreement dated 31/03/2013 has been cancelled between the parties by mutual consent.
6. Learned counsel submits that the entire case was registered at Jaipur merely because of several relatives of the complainant being members of police although it did not have the territorial jurisdiction to even register the case and the FIR be therefore quashed. Learned counsel relied on the judgment rendered by the Apex Court in Y. Abraham Ajith & Ors. Vs. Inspector of Police, Chennai & Anr. (2004) 8 SCC 100 to submit that in terms of Section 177 Cr.P.C., reference to the local jurisdiction where the offence is committed is mentioned, the Supreme Court has stated that the cause of action would also be required to be seen with regard to the criminal cases for the purpose of territorial jurisdiction.
7. Per-contra, learned counsel for the complainant submitted that the first agreement entered into between the parties was signed at Jaipur and therefore, part of the cause of action did arise at Jaipur. She further submitted that the petitioners have played a fraud and obtained a huge amount from the complainant. While granting bail by this Court under Section 438 Cr.P.C., the petitioners were asked to join investigation but they have also not joined investigation. Learned counsel for the complainant submitted that so far as the complainant is concerned, he is residing in Jaipur and had given money to the petitioners from Jaipur. Further, after cancellation of the agreement also, the complainant was required to be given other pieces of land for which the petitioners had promised but the same were also not provided.
8. After hearing submissions of learned counsel for the
