0

“In a case involving trade and commerce, the Supreme Court dismissed the State’s appeal and held that the State of Arunachal Pradesh has been relieved to have escaped an unnecessary criminal prosecution.”

Blog , , , , , ,

Case Name: The State of Arunachal Pradesh v. Kamal Agarwal 

Case No.: SLP(Crl.) Nos.8663-8665 of 2023 

Dated On: April 18, 2024  

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

 

FACTS OF THE CASE: 

The First Information Report is the source of the two appeals listed above. The above case was dealt along with another case, Chandra Mohan Baday v. The State of Arunachal Pradesh (SLP(Crl.) No. 7301 OF 2022). Three petitions for special leave have been filed by the state of Arunachal Pradesh. 

A plea for the quashing of the FIR was filed with the Gauhati High Court by three of the accused, Chandra Mohan Badaya and Respondent Nos. 3 and 4, Shashi and Rajesh Natani. One crore rupees was transferred in 2016 by M/s Shiv Bhandar, the proprietorship in question, to the accounts of Chandra Mohan Badaya, two of his proprietorships, and Rajesh Natani in four equal transactions of twenty-five lakhs apiece.  

In contrast to the complainant, who claims that the payments were made for the acquisition of a building located between plots Nos. A-47 to A-55, Sikar House, near Chandpole, Jaipur, Rajasthan, the appellant Chandra Mohan Badaya claims that the amount was transmitted as a loan. 

It is crucial to note that there is no formal contract pertaining to the reason for the money transfer, be it a loan or a down payment for the previously mentioned building or piece of land. It is important to remember that there is no official contract regarding the purpose of the money transfer—whether it is a loan or a down payment for the building or property that was previously indicated. The said amount was later repaid in 2016/17. 

 According to Chandra Badaya, he executed two sale deeds for two properties located in Chaksu, Jaipur, in the names of the complainant proprietor’s wife, Smt. Shalini Agarwal, and sister-in-law, Smt. Jaya Agarwal, as well as Shri Anil Agarwal, the holder of the power of attorney. Even though both sale deeds had a total sale consideration of Rs. 1.08 crores, the petitioner only received a total of Rs. 54 lakhs, or Rs. 27 lakhs each. 

The Chief Judicial Magistrate took cognizance and filed a case based on the aforementioned chargesheet. Following that, two sets of petitions were submitted to the Rajasthan High Court and the Gauhati High Court, two separate high courts.  

 

CONTENTIONS OF THE APPELLANT: 

The appellants contended that Rajesh Natani and Chandra Mohan Badaya contacted the complainant company and asked to be considered for an exchange of land or building in Rajasthan for a sum of Rs. one crore. 

As full payment for the sale of the aforementioned land/building, the aforementioned sum was deposited in four instalments on July 19, 2016, July 20, 2016, July 22, 2016, and July 25 in the accounts of Shri Ram Enterprises, A.R. Properties and Colonisers, Shashi Natani w/o Rajesh Natani, and Chandra Mohan Badaya.  

When the accusers saw the structure or plot of land, they refused to give it to the complaint. Since the accused had caused pain, mental anguish, and financial loss, it was evident that they had cheated. Further, the accused refused to turn over the land/building when the complaint was inspected. Because of this, it was evident that the accused had cheated, causing pain, suffering, and financial loss.  

 

CONTENTIONS OF THE RESPONDENTS: 

The State of Arunachal Pradesh appealed the Rajasthan High Court’s ruling in Special Leave Petition Nos. 8663–8665 of 2023, which it filed with the Supreme Court. Interestingly, the complainant did not challenge the Rajasthan High Court’s decision to quash the proceedings. 

The accused individuals have amassed substantial wealth through illicit means; but rather than keeping their word, they have threatened the complainant with dire repercussions. Upon identifying no other course of action, the formal complaint was filed in order to take suitable measures against the individuals involved.  

The address provided in the First Information Report (FIR) for the complainant, Mr. Anil Agrawal, is the address of the company M/s Shiv Bhandar in Pasighat, East Siang District, Arunachal Pradesh. However, the residential address of Anil Agarwal was not mentioned. 

It was also contended that Jaipur, Rajasthan is also home to the property for which it is said that a payment of Rs. 1 crore was made. The FIR makes no mention of the transaction involving the bank data.  

Arunachal Pradesh is the state in where the complainant is allegedly located, however other than that, no additional information related to the alleged offence is stated to be in or within the state; still, a FIR was filed there. It is obvious that the accused parties’ refusal to carry out the sale deed for which they had accepted the Rs. 1 crore sale consideration was the primary motivation behind filing the FIR.  

 

LEGAL PROVISIONS: 

  • Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code: Acts done by several persons in furtherance of common intention. When multiple people commit a crime together to accomplish their shared goal, each of them bears the same liability as if they had committed the crime alone. 
  • Section 120B of the Indian Penal Code: Punishment of criminal conspiracy. In the absence of a specific provision in this Code regarding the punishment of criminal conspiracies, any individual involved in a criminal conspiracy that involves the commission of an offence punishable by death, life imprisonment, or rigorous imprisonment for a term of two years or more will face the same punishments as if they had assisted in the commission of the offence.  
  • Section 420 of the Indian Peanl Code: Cheating and dishonestly inducing delivery of property. Anyone who deceives someone by cheating and then dishonestly persuades that person to give up property to someone else, create, alter, or destroy all or a portion of a valuable security, or sign or seal anything that could be turned into a valuable security, faces up to seven years in prison of any kind in addition to a fine.  

 

COURT’S ANALYSIS AND JUDGMENT:  

The court was of the view that the issue was exclusively of a civil nature. It was a situation where money was advanced without a formal document being signed to specify its purpose or significance. It is unclear from records whether this money was advanced for a loan or as an advance payment for the transfer of property, which was land or a building located in Jaipur.  

Based on the complainant’s assertion that it was for the transfer of property for the land/building specified above would be the subject of evidence presented and proven in a court of law, not by the police conducting an investigation and making a determination. The complainant’s claim in the FIR is not that the land or plot they claimed was going to be transferred to them either didn’t exist or had been sold to another party; rather, it is that the accused parties engaged in some form of deception.  

The court held that a capable Civil Court could hear arguments on all these points. It is not possible to call it cheating. Even though Chandra Mohan Badaya, the appellant, has attempted to clarify that he has already transferred Rs. 37 lakhs to the complainant via bank transfer and has also completed two transfer deeds in favour of Anil Agrawal’s wife and sister-in-law, the holder of the power of attorney, valued at a total of more than Rs. 1.45 crores.  

The court observed that the Rajasthan High Court correctly concluded, after taking into account all relevant circumstances, that any offense—though none is shown to exist—would fall under the territorial jurisdiction of Rajasthan and not Arunachal Pradesh. 

The court pronounced that after eliminating a needless criminal case that was filed and tried in Arunachal Pradesh, the State of Arunachal Pradesh should have been pleased.  

When the complainant in a case involving a civil or business dispute does not come forward to defend its FIR, which has been quashed by the said State, it is equally incumbent upon the said State to explain why it has contacted this Court.  

As a result, the court reversed the Gauhati High Court’s ruling, granted Chandra Mohan Badaya’s appeal, and halted all legal actions related to FIR No. 227 of 2017. The court also rejected the three appeals that the State of Arunachal Pradesh had submitted.  

 

“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal fall into a category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.” 

 

Judgment reviewed by Riddhi S Bhora. 

Click to view judgment.

0

“We are bothered by the decision rendered by the High Court in the instance of extreme provocation and assault; Supreme Court overturns decision of higher court in case of grave assault.”

Blog , , , , ,

Case Title: Ramayan Singh v. The State of Uttar Pradesh 

Case No.: SLP (Crl.) No.14988 of 2023 

Dated On: 19th April, 2024 

Quorum:  Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice Satish Chandra Sharma  

 

FACTS OF THE CASE: 

The facts of the case revolves around one Ramayan Singh who is the appellant and also the original complainant. The facts of the case reveal that a First Information Report (the “FIR”) was lodged by the Appellant i.e., the Original Complainant, on 03.01.2022 stating that on 02.01.2022 at around 3:30 PM, the Appellant along with his uncle i.e., Jitendra Singh (the “Deceased”) and his driver i.e., Rahul were returning from Bankati Bazar when their vehicle was stopped by the accused person(s) including inter alia (i) Respondent No. 2; and (ii) Punit Pal. The accused persons verbally abused the Deceased and proceeded to shatter the windows of the vehicle with iron rods. Subsequently they dragged the Deceased out of the vehicle – and physically assaulted the Deceased with iron rods, hockey sticks and bats with an intention to kill him. 

Upon stealing the deceased’s gold chain and mobile phones from both the driver and the deceased, the accused fled the scene of the incident. After being taken to the Primary Health Centre in Bankati, the deceased was taken to the District Hospital in Basti and then to Sahara Hospital in Lucknow, where he passed away on February 10, 2022, as a result of his severe injuries.  

The deceased person had injuries to his or her head, hand, and knee, according to an inquest report that was written on the same day, February 10, 2022. (ii) A post-mortem was performed, and the results showed that the deceased had four serious antemortem head injuries. Crucially, ante mortem head injuries were found to be the cause of death, leaving the patient in a coma. 

The Original Complainant, who filed the current appeals, is the appellant in this case. In it, he challenges the validity of the order(s) that the High Court issued, expanding (i) Respondent No. 2 and (ii) placing Punit Pal on bail in connection with the FIR.  

 

CONTENTIONS OF THE APPELLANT: 

The appellant contended, rather vehemently, The High Court lacked jurisdiction to grant bail to Respondent No. 2 and Punit Pal given the following facts: (i) accusations had been made against the accused individual(s); (ii) Respondent No. 2 had been found to be the owner of the weapon used in the assault of the deceased; and (iii) the Trial Court had issued well-reasoned orders rejecting bail requests for Respondent No. 2 and Punit Pal.  

It was also further alleged that there is a genuine and likely risk to the accused person(s)’s capacity to influence witnesses given the tremendous influence they have in the area—including Respondent No. 2 and Punit Pal, among others—that all of the businesses close to the scene of the incident stayed closed for ten (10) days following the incident.  

The counsel on behalf of the appellants alleged that Punit Pal and Respondent No. 2 have abused their power. Specifically, it was argued that Appellant himself was the target of threats from Respondent No. 2 and Punit Pal, and that a named witness had previously requested police protection from the Trial Court due to threats made against him while the case was pending.  

that Punit Pal and Respondent No. 2 have abused their power. Specifically, it was argued that Appellant himself was the target of threats from Respondent No. 2 and Punit Pal, and that a named witness had previously requested police protection from the Trial Court due to threats made against him while the case was pending.  

 

CONTENTIONS OF THE RESPONDENTS: 

In a vehement argument, Senior Counsel for Respondent No. 2 and Punit Pal made the following claims in court: That while Respondent No. 2 and Punit Pal have been complying with the trial, the Appellant has put the proceedings before the Trial Court on hold. 

That the accusation made against Punit Pal and Respondent No. 2 about the extension of threats to the appellant was completely false and, in reality, was part of a deliberate attempt to discredit Punit Pal and Respondent No. 2.  

It was further alleged that there was no formal agreement regarding the purported deal between the appellant and Mr. Pankaj Sharma and his wife Mrs. Ashu, even though the second respondent (Vivek Pal @ Vikki Pal) claimed to have given the appellant Rs. 1 lakh in cash. Remarkably, the complainants in this instance were not Mr. Pankaj Sharma or Mrs. Ashu, from whose bank account the money was purportedly moved. Despite these contentions, the second respondent did not appear to contest the matter. 

 

LEGAL PROVISIONS:  

  • S.147 OF IPC- Punishment for rioting. If someone is found guilty of rioting, they could face up to two years in prison of any kind, a fine, or both.  
  • S.148 OF IPC- Rioting, armed with deadly weapon. Anyone found guilty of rioting, carrying a lethal weapon, or using anything else that could be used as a weapon of offence and result in death can be penalised with a fine, three years’ worth of jail, or both.  
  • S.120B OF IPC- Punishment of criminal conspiracy. If this Code does not specifically address the punishment of a criminal conspiracy, then anyone found guilty of conspiring to commit an offence that carries a sentence of death, 2[life imprisonment], or rigorous imprisonment for a term of two years or more will be punished as though they had assisted in the commission of the offence. 
  • S. 323 OF IPC- Punishment for voluntarily causing hurt. Anyone who intentionally causes harm, with the exception of situations covered by section 334, faces a period of imprisonment of any kind up to a year, a fine up to a thousand rupees, or both. 
  • S.504 OF IPC- PINISHMENT FOR INSULTING SOMEONE INTENTIONALLY. Anybody who willfully offends someone and provokes them in the hope that the person will break the peace or commit another crime faces a maximum two-year sentence in either type of jail, a fine, or both.  

 

 

COURT’S ANANLYSIS AND JUDGMENT:  

The court meticulously solved the issue at hand by observing that the accused person was involved in a widespread daylight murder that resulted in the closure of a market for a prolonged period of ten (10) days due to their overwhelming influence in the area. As a result, in our considered opinion, the High Court ought not to have granted Respondent No. 2 and Punit Pal bail in relation to the proceedings arising from the FIR on account of (i) the seriousness of the crime; (ii) the conduct of the accused person(s); and (iii) the overall impact of the crime on society at large.  

The court held that as a result, the contested orders, dated 24.04.2023 and 31.10.2023 respectively, which granted accused Vivek Pal @ Vikki Pal and Punit Pal bail, cannot be upheld in the previously described circumstances and are now set aside.  

The court, In the above terms, accepted the appeals.  The accused Vivek Pal @ Vikki Pal and Punit Pal’s bail bond(s) were revoked. The person or people mentioned above were placed under custody right away. To facilitate further action and required compliance, a copy of this judgement was sent to the Trial Court in Basti, Uttar Pradesh. The Trial Court was then further instructed to wrap up the case as soon as possible, ideally within a year of receiving a copy of this judgement.   

 

“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal fall into a category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.” 

Judgment reviewed by Riddhi S Bhora  

Click to view judgment.