Allahabad High Court
Gyan Chand Agrawal vs State Of U.P. And 2 Others on 20 July, 2026
Author: Siddharth
Bench: Siddharth
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
Neutral Citation No. - 2026:AHC:147874-DB
Order Reserved On:-14.07.2026. Order Delivered On:-20.07.2026.
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
CRIMINAL MISC. WRIT PETITION No. - 18268 of 2022
Gyan Chand Agrawal
.....Petitioner(s)
Versus
State Of U.P. And 2 Others
.....Respondent(s)
Counsel for Petitioner(s)
:
Vinayak Mithal
Counsel for Respondent(s)
:
Ajay Kumar Bashist Singh, G.A., Ram Kishore Pandey, Varad Nath
Court No. - 43
HON'BLE SIDDHARTH, J.
HON’BLE VINAI KUMAR DWIVEDI, J.
(Delivered by Hon’ble Siddharth,J.)
1. Heard Sri Dileep Gupta, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Sri Rishabh Agarwal, Advocate holding brief of Sri Vinayak Mithal, learned counsel for the petitioner; Sri Shashi Kant Shukla, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Sri Ajay Kumar Bashist Singh, learned counsel for the respondent no. 3; learned A.G.A for the State-respondent nos. 1 and 2 and perused the material on record.
2. The above noted writ petition has been filed praying for following reliefs :-
“(i) Issue an appropriate writ, order or direction quashing the impugned order passed by the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, District Agra allowing Application No. 751/2021 [Pink City Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. v. Gyan Chandra Agarwal & Ors.] on 30.11.2021;
(ii). Issue an appropriate writ, order or direction quashing the impugned FIR bearing Case Crime No. 508 of 2021 lodged at Police Station Hari Parvath, District Agra on 11.12.2021 under Sections 420, 406, 467, 468, 471 and 120-B of IPC;
(iii). Issue an appropriate writ, order or direction quashing the impugned order passed by the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, District Agra in Misc. Case No. 258/2022 [Pink City Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. v. Gyan Chandra Agarwal & Ors.] on 28.07.2022;
(iv). Issue an appropriate writ, order or direction commanding the respondents not to arrest the petitioner or take any coercive action against the petitioner in FIR bearing Case Crime No. 508 of 2021 lodged at Police Station Hari Parvath, District Agra on 11.12.2021 under Sections 420, 406, 467, 468, 471 and 120-B of IPC;
(v). Issue any other appropriate writ, order or direction which this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper under the facts and circumstances of the present case;
(vi) Award the costs of the petition to the petitioner against the respondents.”
3. The briefs facts of the petition are that the petitioner is a real-estate developer, who was contacted by Mr. Rakesh Garg in the year 2005 for developing a township scheme in Jaipur. The respondent no. 3 Company was accordingly incorporated with the close aides of Mr. Rakesh Garg being appointed as the initial Directors of the respondent no. 3, Company. The registered office is situated at Vaishali Nagar, District Jaipur, Rajasthan.
4. It was mutually agreed that, both the parties will launch a residential township project in the name of “Narayan Narsi Village” located at village Jaisinghpura, Bhankrota, District Jaipur, Rajasthan. The petitioner was appointed as the Additional Director of the respondent no. 3, Company on 06.11.2005.
5. The complainant company failed to make the payment to the local farmers and hence, could not carry out effective proceedings to develop the scheme, due to which the scheme could not proceed any further and only the land equivalent to around 70 bigha could be transferred to the complainant company. Since then the civil disputes are pending amongst the petitioner, Complainant Company and several other stakeholders.
6. The respondent no. 3, Company with the intention of giving the civil disputes a criminal color had lodged FIR bearing Case Crime No. 95/2018 at Police Station Bhankrota, Jaipur, Rajasthan on 01.04.2018 under Sections- 420, 406, 467, 468, 471 and 120-B against the petitioner and other accused persons.
7. The Investigating Officer carried out a thorough investigation and found that no offence as alleged in the FIR was committed by the petitioner herein and the matter is purely a civil dispute between the parties.
8. The investigating officer found the entire allegations leveled by the respondent no. 3, Company in the said F.I.R to be false and frivolous as the company failed to produce any substantial documents, agreements, bank records, etc., in support thereof.
9. The investigating officer also found that the respondent company had paid no money to the petitioner for purchasing the land as alleged in the F.I.R. The money paid by the respondent no. 3 company in various companies / firms of the petitioner was for some other purpose, which had been duly verified with the accounting records of the parties.
10. The investigating officer accordingly submitted Final Report No. 187 / 2018 on 26.11.2018 expunging the petitioner herein from the allegations leveled by the respondent no. 3 company in the said F.I.R. The respondent no. 3 company had filed a protest petition against the abovementioned final report. During the pendency of the protest petition, the investigation agency recalled the final report and carried out the further investigation through a specialized agency which had again subsequently submitted a negative final report.
11. The respondent no. 3, company again went ahead to file another F.I.R bearing Case Crime No. 474 of 2019 at Police Station- Bhankrota, Jaipur, Rajasthan on 02.08.2019 under Sections- 420, 406, 467, 468, 471 and 120-B against the same persons as in F.I.R bearing Case Crime No. 95 of 2018. The allegations leveled in the F.I.R bearing Case Crime No. 474 of 2019 were materially and substantially similar to those leveled in the earlier F.I.R Case Crime No. 95 of 2018. The main allegation leveled in the F.I.R Case Crime No. 474 of 2019 was the failure of the petitioner in transferring the land located in the village Jaisinghpura, Jaipur, Rajasthan to the respondent no. 3 company in spite of receiving the payments thereof. The investigating officer after a detailed investigation had submitted Final Report No. 79 of 2020 before the concerned learned Magistrate Court on 18.08.2020 observing that no offence was committed by the petitioner and the dispute between the parties is purely civil in nature.
12. The investigating officer recorded a specific finding that the allegations in the F.I.R Case Crime No. 474 of 2019 are materially similar to those made in the F.I.R bearing Case Crime No. 95 of 2018 in which the Final Report has already been filed by the Investigating Agency. The respondent no. 3 company subsequently filed Appeal No. 356 of 2020 (M/s Pinkcity Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. v. Jaipur Development Authority and Anr.) before the Jaipur Development Authority Appellate Tribunal [JDAAT], Jaipur, Rajasthan assailing the land transfer deeds executed by various land owners of the village Jaisinghpura, Jaipur, Rajasthan.
13. the primary ground taken by the respondent no. 3, Company in the Appeal No. 356/2020 was that the land owners could not have transferred the said lands as the land vests with the Rajasthan State Government pursuant to the order passed under section 90-B of the Jaipur Development Authority Act, 1982.
14. The respondent no. 3, Company has itself disputed the title of the land owned by various farmers, situated in the Village Jaisinghpura, Jaipur, Rajasthan. The respondent no. 3 had also preferred interim reliefs in Appeal No. 356/2020 which were rejected by JDAAT vide order passed on 19.11.2020. The respondent no. 3, Company had assailed the abovementioned order before the Hon’ble Rajasthan High Court in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 14305/2020. The petitioner verily believes that the Hon’ble Rajasthan High Court has not granted any interim reliefs to the Company in the said case. One of the landowners had filed Civil Suit No. 339/2017 (Deependra Singh v. Pinkcity Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd.) before the court of Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division), Court No. 26, District Jaipur, Rajasthan seeking a decree of permanent injunction against the respondent no. 3, Company from interfering with the peaceful possession over his land along with an application for temporary injunction.
15. The plaintiff in Civil Suit No. 339 of 2017 has claimed that the respondent no. 3, company is creating hurdles in the peaceful enjoyment of the land owned by him and trying to usurp his rights over the land by wrongfully dispossessing him. The court of Additional Civil Judge (Court No. 26), District Jaipur, Rajasthan had allowed the application for interim injunction preferred by the plaintiff in Civil Suit No. 339 of 2017 (Deependra Singh vs. Pinkcity Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd.) after hearing both the parties on 19.09.2019. Learned court has also observed that all the decisions pertaining to the respondent no. 3, company were taken with due consent and knowledge of all directors and the company had been involved in procurement of land and issuance of allotment letter. Similar temporary injunction was also granted in the case of Harish Singh v. Pinkcity Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. (T.I. Application No. 378 of 2017) through the order dated 13.09.2019. The respondent no. 3, company after exhausting all the available legal remedies made a representation before the Inspector General, Agra Division, District Agra on 24.06.2021 with the mala fide intent of arm twisting the petitioner herein.
16. The respondent no. 3, company leveled substantially similar allegations against the petitioner and other accused persons as leveled in the earlier F.I.Rs lodged at Jaipur, Rajasthan. The respondent no. 3, company went on to file Misc. Application No. 751 of 2021 (Pink City Pvt. Ltd. v. Gyan Chand Agarwal and Ors.) under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C for registration of an F.I.R before the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, District Agra on 29.10.2021. The material allegations leveled in the Misc. Application No. 751 of 2021 are that the petitioner along with other co-accused persons had approached the company at their Agra office and requested them to invest in the land situated at Gram Jaisinghpura, Tehsil Sanganer, District Jaipur, Rajasthan. The co-accused, Mr. Prabhulal Chopra and Mr. Ram Prasad Chopra, even showed the agreements executed by some of the farmers for selling their lands and the accused persons requested the company to visit to Jaipur to inspect the said land. One Mr. Narendra Kumar Agrawal, S/o Shri Ramesh Chand Agrawal, being the authorized representative of the company had visited Jaipur and met with some of the farmers who informed him that they have sold their lands to Mr. Prabhulal Chopra and Mr. Ram Prasad Chopra who are directors of M/s. Rajasthan Land Developers Pvt. Ltd. Since the lands was belonged to the Reserved Caste, so it cannot be purchased directly due to which the petitioner, Mr. Prabhulal Chopra and Mr. Ram Prasad Chopra assured the Company that they will carry out all necessary formalities which are necessary for launching a residential township project on the said land including the proceedings for conversion of land and seeking necessary approvals from JDA.
17. The Company accordingly transferred Rs. 1,60,00,000/- (Rupees One Crore Sixty Lakhs) in the account of Rajasthan Land Developers Pvt. Ltd., along with Rs. 5,80,00,000/- (Rupees Five Crore Eighty Lakhs) in the bank account of the petitioner’s another Firm being M/s. Trade Pvt. Ltd. and had also paid Rs. 2,80,00,000/- (Rupees Two Crore Eighty Lakhs) to various other farmers. The petitioner and other accused persons did not issue the allotment letters of the land in spite of receiving a sum of Rs. 10,20,00,000/- (Rupees Ten Crore Twenty Lakhs). The petitioner kept on promising that the Allotment Letters would be issued as soon as the site maps are approved by the JDA, but in spite of several reminders, the Allotment letters were not issued. The petitioner hatched a criminal conspiracy along with other co-accused persons against the Company by fraudulently inducing and taking undue advantage of it.
18. The Company has accordingly concocted the story to portray the alleged commission of offence under Sections- 420, 406, 467, 468, 471 and 120-B of IPC by the petitioner. The allegations leveled in the Misc. Application No. 751/2021 are therefore substantially similar to those leveled in the earlier FIRs lodged at Jaipur, Rajasthan. It is pertinent to mention here that the respondent no. 3, Company deliberately did not disclose the court about the earlier FIRs lodged on its behalf, or the dates or that the petitioner herein is an erstwhile director of the company. The court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, District Agra without application of mind and considering the application moved by the respondent no. 3, Company as gospel of truth has passed the impugned order on 30.11.2021 allowing the Misc. Application No. 751/2021 and directing the Station House Officer [SHO], Police Station- Hari Parvath, District- Agra to register an FIR.
19. Accordingly the impugned FIR was lodged at Police Station Hari Parvath, District Agra on 11.12.2021 under Sections 420, 406, 467, 468, 471 and 120-B of IPC against the petitioner herein and other accused persons.
20. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the facts narrated in the impugned F.I.R are merely the bunch of lies which have nothing to do with reality and no such transactions had ever happened between the complainant and the petitioner. The F.I.R has been lodged solely with the intent to harass the petitioner and evidently, no prima facie offence has been made out against the petitioner.
21. From a bare perusal of the impugned FIR it is evident that the essential ingredients of the alleged offences are not even prima facie made out qua the petitioner. The allegations made in the FIR or complaint are so absurd and inherently improbable on the basis of which no prudent person can ever reach on a just conclusion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the petitioner. Evidently the Complainant has lodged the present FIR concealing the true and correct facts and has concocted the facts for lodging the present FIR. The respondent no. 3, Company had already lodged 2 (two) other FIRs and 3 (three) complaints on the same set of facts and is merely abusing the process of law by lodging one after the other complaint on closure of the earlier complaint/FIR. The present FIR has been lodged with an inordinate delay of over 15 years without explaining the said delay though the entire facts were in the knowledge of the respondent no. 3, Company from the very beginning. Therefore, it prima facie appears that the Company did not disclose any dates in the impugned FIR. The respondent no. 3, Company has not provided any details relating to the Khasra number and has not specifically provided the details of the land sought to be purchased.
22. The present FIR could not have been lodged at Agra as no cause of action or purported offence has been committed in Agra. The wrongful intent of the Complainant Company is evident from the fact that the Complainant Company has kept changing the address of the Company to lodge every new FIR. While lodging the FIR No. 95/2018 the Complainant Company stated address as 160, 1st Floor, Sector-45, Jharsa, Gurugram, Haryana. However, while lodging the FIR No. 474/2019 the registered address of the Company was stated as 12, Ring Road, Lajpat Nagar-4, New Delhi. When these attempts failed, the Complainant Company went on to lodge the present FIR by stating that the address of the Company as 210, Hari Talkies, Bypass Road, New Agra. Thus, it is evident that the address stated in the present FIR has been mentioned solely to wrongly create the jurisdiction of the police station in Agra. Not just this, the respondent no. 3 has made self-contradictory versions of story on all three occasions and different stories have been narrated in the three FIRs though the incident has been the same. The alleged accused persons have neither met the officials of the respondent no. 3, Company, in Agra, nor the land under dispute is situated in Agra. It is pertinent to mention there that Company did not have any office in Agra at the time of purported offence and the office has been merely shown to be existing solely to create jurisdiction in Agra.
23. It has been further submitted that the respondent no. 3, Company, for reasons best known to it has roped in M/s Rajasthan Land Developers Pvt. Ltd. and its directors in the present FIR, though they are nowhere associated with the said land situated in the Village Jaisinghpura, Jaipur, Rajasthan. The respondent no. 3, Company, had executed an Agreement on 29.05.2006 with M/s Rajasthan Land Developers Pvt. Ltd. for purchasing the parcel of land in a project named Silver City, Jaipur when the petitioner was still a director in the company. It was agreed under the Agreement that the respondent no. 3, Company would pay Rupees 14.38 Crore to M/s Rajasthan Land Developers Pvt. Ltd. for purchasing land in its project Silver City. The money stated in the FIR was paid in furtherance of the said agreement only and the Complainant Company is still required to pay the remaining amount to get the land transferred in its favour. It is therefore evident that the money paid to M/s Rajasthan Land Developers Pvt. Ltd. has nothing to do with the land situated in the Village Jaisinghpura, Jaipur, Rajasthan. The petitioner had submitted a detailed letter before the SHO, Police Station Hari Parvath, District Agra disclosing the genesis of the dispute in detail as well as enclosing all the necessary documents.
24. The Investigating Officer conducted a detailed investigation and arrived at a conclusion that the entire allegation leveled by the respondent no. 3, Company is false and fabricated only to harass the accused persons. The Investigating Officer accordingly filed Final Report No. 18/2022 on 31.01.2022 before the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, District Agra. The Investigating Officer had also preferred an application before the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, District Agra on 31.01.2022 for initiating proceedings under section 182 of IPC against the respondent no. 3, Company for filing a case on false and fabricated grounds. The respondent no. 3 had filed a Protest Petition against the Final Report No. 18/2022 on 28.07.2022. The court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, District Agra without proper application of mind and in a purely mechanical fashion had passed the impugned order directing the SHO, Police Station Hari Parvath, District Agra to carry out further investigation on the averments made in the protest petition. Admittedly, neither the offence was committed with the local jurisdiction nor are any of the accused persons ordinarily found with the local jurisdiction of the court of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, District- Agra.
25. The SHO, Police Station Hari Parvath had forwarded the copy of the Complaint filed by the respondent no. 3, Company, to the Deputy Commissioner of Police, Jaipur (South) requesting them to carry out the investigation the present matter. The Police Station Bhankrota, Jaipur has accordingly registered a complaint on 22.06.2022. It is crystal clear from the bare perusal of the contents of the FIR that the cause of action has arisen only in Jaipur and not anywhere else. It is submitted that it is a settled proposition of law that where the cause of action arises, the Criminal Complaint can only be filed in that jurisdiction only. Since no cause of action arises in Agra, thus, the P.S. Hari Parvath has no jurisdiction to investigate the present matter. On merits, the frivolousness of the FIR is evident from the fact that most of the farmers named in the FIR have nothing to do with the purported transaction and no money whatsoever has ever been paid by the Complainant Company to these farmers. Also, Ram Prasad Chopra was not even the director of M/s Rajasthan Land Developers Pvt. Ltd. at the time of the purported transaction and it is evident from records that he joined the Company in the year 2009.
26. The allegations leveled in the F.I.R in hand, are completely baseless and have no veracity at all and in the present case, the Complainant is just simply dragging the petitioner through the means of the concerned F.I.R to subject him to humiliation, harassment and suppression. This is a fit case for quashing the F.I.R against the petitioner as no allegation mentioned in the FIR are made out prima facie. The allegations leveled against the petitioner are completely false and made up with no iota of corroboration of the truth. The officers of Police Station Hari Parvath, Agra are continuously making efforts to arrest the petitioner and if he is arrested, then he will suffer irreparable loss and injury, which cannot be compensated in any manner. Further, the Informant is running pillar to post and leaving no stones unturned to get the petitioner arrested. The Informant is misusing the law of the land and abusing the process of law by lodging frivolous and baseless F.I.R bearing Case Crime No. 508/2021 at Police Station Hari Parvath, Agra against the petitioner.
27. A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of contesting-respondent no. 3 wherein it has been averred that the Captioned Petition has been filed by the petitioner, with completely mala fide aim of impeding the legal and judicial process against him. The petitioner has come with completely unclean hands before this Hon’ble Court. The petitioner is a Land Mafia in Jaipur and has criminal antecedents against him. The petitioner is notorious for land-grabbing and from information available in public domain, it has come to the knowledge of the Applicant that a history-sheet has been opened against him by the Jaipur Police. Further, from information available in public domain, it has also come to the knowledge of the Applicant that over 300 criminal cases have been registered against him in Jaipur, which is the longest against any individual in the City of Jaipur.
28. The petitioner has suppressed extremely relevant and material facts from this Hon’ble Court in order to misguide this Hon’ble Court into granting orders in favour of the petitioner. It is on the basis of such misrepresentation and suppression that the petitioner, had misguided this Hon’ble Court into granting an interim order on 29.11.2022 in his favour of him in the writ petition. It is settled law that a petitioner/litigant must approach this Hon’ble Court with clean hands and suppression and misrepresentation itself are grounds for dismissal of their Petition. Suppression of the fact that the petitioner is a habitual offender and has numerous cases/FIRs against him itself rendered the captioned petition liable to be dismissed.
29. The petitioner has mala fidely attempted to circumvent the procedure of law by directly approaching this Hon’ble Court. Even if the petitioner had to challenge the orders passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Agra, the appropriate remedy for him was to approach the revisional court. The petitioner ought to have exercised its remedy before the Revisional Court, which is the alternate efficacious remedy available to the petitioner, instead of invoking the Writ Jurisdiction of this Hon’ble Court. Vide the Order dated 30.11.2021, the Chief Judicial Magistrate had directed for the registration of an FIR. Further vide order dated 28.7.2022, Chief Judicial Magistrate had allowed the protest petition filed by the applicant here in. It is submitted that the neither of the two aforesaid Orders are interlocutory in nature and thus, the appropriate forum and remedy for challenging the same would be before the Sessions Judge in Revisional jurisdiction rather than approaching this Hon’ble Court under Writ Jurisdiction. Thus, the stay order granted by this Hon’ble Court ought to be vacated at the very outset.
30. In terms of settled law, a Police Officer is bound to register an FIR upon disclosure of a cognizable offence. For this purpose, the allegations made in the complaint have to been seen and if the same provides the investigating officer even a reason to suspect that a cognizable offence has been committed, he will be bound to register an FIR in terms of law and investigate the same. No impediment ought to be created by the courts in the fair and impartial investigation of the agencies at the preliminary stage. Reliance has been placed on CBI v. Tapan Kumar Singh (2003) 6 SCC 175; Lalita Kumari v. Government of Uttar Pradesh & Ors. (2014) 2 SCC 14].
31. It is settled law that it is the prerogative and statutory right of the investigating agency to investigate an offence and the judiciary ought not interfere in the same in normal circumstances. The powers of the court and the investigating agencies are complementary and not overlapping. The Hon’ble Supreme Court has on reiterated in various cases that the courts ought not to interfere with the FIR in cases where a cognizable offence is made out on a perusal of the FIR. It is only in the rarest of rare cases that the investigation being carried out by the investigating agency can be interfered with by exercise of the inherent powers of the Constitutional Courts in the cases of Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Maharashtra & Ors. AIR 2021 SC 1918; King Emperor v. Khwaja Nazir Ahmad AIR 1945 PC 18; P. Chidambaram v. Directorate of Enforcement 2019 9 SCC 24; State of Telangana v. Habib Abdullah Jeelani (2017) 2 SCC 779; Directorate of Enforcement v. Niraj Tyagi & Ors. 2024 SCC OnLine SC 134.
32. It is submitted that false representations have been made on behalf of the petitioner to mislead this Hon’ble Court. It is false to state that the petitioner is real estate developer or was contacted by Mr. Rakesh Garg in the year 2005 for developing a township scheme in Jaipur. Mr. Garg is a well-known and successful businessman and founder of the Rajdarbar Group of Companies. He had started land business in the year 2004 in cities like Agra, Karnal, Gurgaon, etc., with the aim of developing affordable and well-equipped housing schemes for the common man. He had also purchased land in Jaipur, including in villages of Kalwara, Bagru Khurd, Narsinghpura alas Dadiya, etc. The petitioner, on the other hand, is a Land Mafia and is notorious for land-grabbing and from information available in public domain, it has come to the knowledge of the applicant that a history-sheet has been opened against him by the Jaipur Police. Further, from information available in public domain, it has also come to the knowledge of the Applicant that over 300 criminal cases have been registered against him in Jaipur, which is the largest number of cases against any individual in the City of Jaipur. It was the petitioner who had brought one Prabhulal Chopra, Ramprasad Chopra, etc. and their accomplices/partners to the corporate office of the Rajdarbar Group in Agra at the end of the year 2004. The petitioner in collusion with Prabhulal Chopra and Ramprasad Chopra had represented to the representatives of the Rajdarbar Group that Prabhulal Chopra and Ramprasad Chopra were directors of M/s Rajasthan Land Developers Pvt. Ltd. The petitioner along with the Directors of M/s. Rajasthan Land Developers Pvt. Ltd. had assured the representatives of the Rajdarbar Group that since the Rajdarbar Group was looking to develop a housing society in Jaipur, they could provide land from the farmers of the villages at Jaipur for developing housing scheme in village Jaisinghpura and Chinmanpura tehsil Sanganer district Jaipur and nearby areas. It was specifically represented to the representative of the Rajdarbar Group that the directors of M/s. Rajasthan Land Developers Pvt. Ltd. had already purchased certain land parcels from the farmers of the aforesaid villages. The petitioner and Directors of M/s. Rajasthan Land Developers Pvt. Ltd. showed the representatives of the Rajdarbar Group agreements in relation to land parcels with the villagers. The petitioner and Directors of M/s. Rajasthan Land Developers Pvt. Ltd. also invited the representative of the Rajdarbar Group, Sh. Narendra Kumar Agarwal, to Jaipur to assess the land under question. Accordingly, based upon the representations made by the petitioner and Directors of M/s. Rajasthan Land Developers Pvt. Ltd., Sh. Narendra Kumar Agarwal visited Jaipur to assess the land and met the villagers. Sh. Narendra Kumar Agarwal was informed by the villagers and Directors of M/s. Rajasthan Land Developers Pvt. Ltd. that the land has already been purchased by Directors of M/s. Rajasthan Land Developers Pvt. Ltd., i.e. Sh. Prabhu Lal Chopra and Sh. Ram Prasad Chopra. Subsequently, to facilitate the transactions and streamline the process, the respondent No. 3 Company was incorporated.Further, based upon the aforesaid representations made by the villagers and the petitioner and his accomplices, the Rajdarbar Group through respondent no. 3 Company gave a total of Rs. 10.2 Crores to the petitioner and his accomplices and their companies. The entire facts have been narrated in the impugned FIR and the Application seeking registration of the impugned FIR filed on behalf of respondent no. 3. The contents of the preliminary objections/submissions and the paras above are reiterated herein in full but not reproduced for the sake of brevity.
33. The entire investment in the respondent no. 3, Company at the time of its incorporation was done by Shri Rakesh Garg. The petitioner is neither a shareholder in the respondent no. 3, Company or any of its Group Companies nor did the petitioner invest any amount for the purpose of purchasing any land by the respondent no. 3. It is pertinent to note that while the registered office of the respondent no. 3 is at Vaishali Nagar, Jaipur Rajasthan, one of the Corporate offices of the respondent no. 3, Company, where the petitioner had earlier met Sh. Rakesh Garg for the first time, was at Agra at 210 Heera Talkies, Bypass Road, New Agra, District Agra. It is false to state that the launch of the residential township project in the name of “Narayan Narsi Village” was a mutual decision of the petitioner and Shri Rakesh Garg. To that end, it is clarified that the entire brainchild of the project was of Shri Rakesh Garg and the petitioner, based on false representations, had sought to become a part of the same. The petitioner had misrepresented to the respondent no. 3, Company that the petitioner and the Directors of M/s. Rajasthan Land Developers Pvt. Ltd. had already either bought the land under question from the farmers and/or were already in discussion with the villagers for sale of their respective lands. The petitioner and the Directors of M/s. Rajasthan Land Developers Pvt. Ltd. had even shown certain contracts/agreements and other documents to that end to the representatives of respondent no. 3. These discussions had taken place at the corporate office of Respondent No. 3 at Agra with Sh. Rakesh Garg and Sh. Narendra Kumar Agarwal, the authorised representative of the Respondent No. 3 Company. It was represented by the petitioner and Directors of M/s. Rajasthan Land Developers Pvt. Ltd. that they have already made a deal for the sale of the land in question with the villagers and the sale deeds of the relevant land parcels of these villages will be executed and registered immediately in favour of the respondent no. 3, Company. It was further represented that the lands belonging to villagers of schedule cast and schedule tribes will also be reserved by them upon payment of the price of their lands by the respondent no. 3, Company. All payments with respect to the purchase of these land parcels have been made by the respondent no. 3, Company as and when required in terms of agreements and law. The contents of the preliminary objections/submissions and the paras above are reiterated herein in full but not reproduced for the sake of brevity.
34. The petitioner has attempted to portray a completely false and misleading picture of the events that had taken place. The petitioner, being a local resident of Jaipur, had himself insisted upon being appointed as a professional director in respondent no. 3, Company. He had pleaded with the respondent no. 3, Company that he needed a designation in the respondent no. 3, Company in order for the smooth running of the day-to-day operations, obtaining approval under the applicable law, change of land, use, layout, plant, applying and co-ordinating with the Jaipur Development Authority. Thus, it was upon the request of the petitioner himself that he was appointed as a Director in the respondent no. 3 Company. The contents of the preliminary objections/submissions and the paras above are reiterated herein in full but not reproduced for the sake of brevity. It is specifically denied that the respondent no. 3, Company had failed to make payment to the local farmers and thus effective proceedings to execute and develop the project could not be carried out. The transaction has been detailed in the FIR and the Application u/s 156(3) filed on behalf of the respondent no. 3, Company. Further, the details of the transaction have been mentioned in two agreements entered into by the respondent no. 3, Company. In this regard, it is also stated that pendency of civil disputes for recovery does not take away from the criminal nature of the acts of the petitioner and his conspirators. It is further submitted that the fact that the farmers voluntarily stated on affidavits before the relevant authorities that they are surrendering their land for the purpose of development of the project by the respondent no. 3 clearly shows that all payments were duly and timely made by the respondent no. 3 to the land owners for the purchase of the relevant land parcels.
35. It has been submitted that the petitioner had cheated the respondent no. 3 by using forged and fabricated documents, including lease documents, site plans, contract/agreement of sale purchase. It was in this light that the FIR was registered at the behest of the respondent no. 3, Company against the petitioner and his criminal associates at Police Station Bhankrota, Jaipur West. It was evident from the same that the petitioner and his criminal associates had indulged in commission of various offences in a calculated and pre-planned manner. The contents of the preliminary objections/submissions and the paras above are reiterated herein in full but not reproduced for the sake of brevity.
36. It is false to allege that the dispute between the parties is civil in nature. It is submitted that glaring acts of criminality have been committed by the petitioner and his criminal associates. The petitioner without having any authority, had issued possession letters signed by him on behalf of the respondent no. 3, Company. The petitioner, acting as a representative of the respondent no. 3, Company, had colluded with the villagers/locals/land owners and created and fabricated documents to grab the land rightfully belonging to the respondent no. 3, Company. He had also made representations before the Jaipur Development Authority on behalf of respondent no. 3, Company without the latter’s knowledge. It is specifically denied that the respondent no. 3, Company had failed to produce any substantial documents, agreements, bank records in support of the allegations made therein. It is submitted that the respondent no. 3, Company had provided substantial material highlighting the criminality of the petitioner however, it was owing to the collusion between the authorities and the petitioner that the closure report was filed by the Police. It is false to state that no money was paid to the petitioner for the purpose of purchasing the land under question therein. In any event, it is stated that the FIR No. 95/2018 is completely distinct and separate from the Impugned FIR and relates to a completely distinct and separate transaction and has no bearing on the instant case. It is pertinent to note that the petitioner has slyly attempted to mislead this Hon’ble Court by stating that the money had been paid “for some other purpose” without mentioning and stating the purpose for which the same was given by the respondent no. 3, Company to the petitioner. It is evident that the dispute is not civil in nature, but has been committed by the petitioner and is criminal associates with the utmost mala fide and criminal intent. It is submitted that the petitioner is an influential individual in Jaipur and has been a land mafia in the area. The petitioner has a history of colluding with police officials to suppress cases against himself. In fact, it was owing to the same that the various FIRs registered against the petitioner had never come to light before he was history sheeted by the Jaipur police. It is the case of the respondent no. 3, Company that the Final Report No. 187/2018 submitted by the Jaipur Police in relation to FIR No. 95/2018 is a sham and was prepared by the police officials in collusion with the petitioner. The collusive nature of the investigation conducted by the Jaipur police is also evident from the fact that upon filing of the protest petition, the Jaipur police had themselves withdrawn the final report submitted by it since the matter was under scrutiny before the jurisdictional judge. Notably, to the best of the knowledge of the respondent no. 3, the investigation in relation to the said FIR is ongoing and is being conducted by the SOG Jaipur. In this regard, it is also pertinent to note that the petitioner is not co-operating with the investigation being conducted by the SOG and to the best of the knowledge of the deponent, warrants for arrest have been issued against the Petitioner in relation thereto. Thus, while the petitioner is absconding from one investigation, it is seeking quashing of the Impugned FIR by suppressing material facts from this Hon’ble Court.
37. The FIR No. 474/2019 was materially and substantially not similar to FIR No. 95/2018. The two FIRs were registered in relation to different acts of criminality committed by the petitioner. The respondent no. 3, Company was constrained to file a complaint leading to registration of FIR No. 474/2019 as the money paid by the respondent no. 3 was misappropriated by the Petitioner. The transaction of the FIRs are distinct and separate which is evident from a perusal of the contents of the FIRs. The final report was yet again submitted by the Jaipur police in collusion with the petitioner, and the same was completely bogus and false. Despite clear acts of criminality, the Jaipur police had made all attempts to protect the Petitioner from the clutches of law. Despite the FIR having been registered for completely different offences and for a completely distinct transaction, wrong submissions were made by the investigating officer that the allegations in FIR No. 474/2019 were materially similar to those in FIR No. 95/2018.
38. It is further submitted that the remedies pursued by the respondent no. 3 before the Jaipur Development Authority Appellate Tribunal are completely distinct from the cause of action in the impugned FIR owing to the criminal acts of the petitioner. In this regard, it is important to note that even the reliefs sought before the JDAAT, are not against the petitioner. It is submitted that the respondent no. 3 is fully entitled to pursue its remedy before the JDAAT and other forums, seeking cancellation of the alleged land transfer deeds in as much as that is the appropriate forum for the same. It is submitted that the pendency of those litigations have no relevance to the issue at hand and would not absolve the petitioner of his criminal deeds.
39. The pendency of the civil suits are irrelevant for the purpose of adjudication of the instant case and does not absolve the petitioner of criminal misdeeds. It is specifically denied that the respondent no. 3 has made any attempts to create hurdles in the peaceful enjoyment of anyone’s lands. It is further specifically denied that decisions of the petitioner were taken with the due consent and knowledge of the respondent no. 3, Company. In this regard, it is specifically submitted that the petitioner has acted with mala fide intent against the interest of the respondent no. 3, Company with the aim of defrauding and cheating it. It is pertinent to note that a partnership firm registered in the name of M/s. City Wonder had encroached upon the land parcel on which the respondent no. 3, Company was building the project . The respondent no. 3, Company was constrained to file various proceedings against the said firm owing to the illegal acts committed by it. The respondent no. 3, Company, during the course of the litigations, became aware that the petitioner, despite being a director of the respondent no. 3, Company, was also a partner in M/s. City Wonder and was acting against the interests of the respondent no. 3, Company and attempting to encroach upon the land belonging to the respondent no. 3, Company. These dubious acts of the Petitioner clearly show his criminal intent. In this regard, an FIR was also registered against the firm M/s. City Wonder and investigation by the SOG is ongoing in relation to the same.
40. It is wrongly stated that the representation and complaint to the Inspector General, Agra was submitted by the respondent no. 3 after exhaustion of all the other available legal remedies and that the allegations made in the said F.I.R is substantially similar to the allegations made in the other FIRs. It is specifically denied that the same was done with the mala fide intent of arm twisting the petitioner. The remaining contents are a matter of record and thus does not merit any response.
41. However, it is stated that from a perusal of the allegations mentioned in the FIR, it is evident that the Petitioner has indulged in serious criminal acts and have cheated the respondent no. 3 using forged and fabricated documents. reference and reliance is placed upon the allegations and averments already made in the Impugned FIR. Clear evidence of criminality was produced before this jurisdictional judge by the respondent no. 3, Company leading to the registration of the said FIR. The allegations made in the Application No. 751/2021 were not substantially similar to those levelled in the FIRs lodged at Jaipur. This ground has been taken by the petitioner to misguide this Hon’ble Court. The registration and proceedings in the FIRs registered at Jaipur, have no relevance whatsoever with the instant case, and the same were registered in relation to completely separate and distinct transactions. The Chief Judicial Magistrate, district Agra had passed the order dated 30.11.2021 after application or judicial mind. A perusal of the said order clearly shows that the CJM had considered all the factual aspects and the material on record while passing the order dated 30.11.2021. The same was passed in complete compliance of the applicable law and is legally sound and proper. From a perusal of the said FIR and the underlying material, it is evident that the instant petition is yet another mala fide attempt on part of the Petitioner to frustrate the rights of respondent no. 3, Company.
42. It is submitted that the facts alleged in the said FIR clearly make out the criminal offences alleged therein against the petitioner and his criminal associates. It is reiterated that the allegations made in the said FIR are completely distinct from the FIR registered previously on the complaints of the respondent no. 3, Company at Jaipur. There is absolutely no abuse of process of law by the respondent no. 3.
43. In this regard, it is submitted that the respondent no. 3 had elaborated and explained the criminal activities committed by the petitioner and his criminal associates. A prima facie cognizable offence is clearly made out in the instant case and thus, the FIR was rightly registered. It is submitted that the investigation is the domain of the agencies and this Hon’ble Court ought not interfere with the same. FIR is not an encyclopaedia and the details of the criminality will be uncovered during the course of investigation.
44. It is specifically pleaded and argued that is it wrong to state that no cause of action had taken place in Agra and thus the registration of the said FIR and the orders impugned in the petition are completely in accordance with law and was well within the jurisdiction of the court. The respondent no. 3 had not changed its address to invoke the jurisdiction of the courts in Agra. It is evident from a perusal of the said FIR that the transaction has taken place at Agra. Thus, from the allegations made in the said FIR, clear jurisdiction of the courts in Agra is made out. The averments made by the petitioner in the captioned petition with respect to the lack of territorial jurisdiction is a matter of investigation and the FIR cannot be quashed solely on the basis of the unsubstantiated averments made by the petitioner to misguide this Hon’ble Court. It is settled law that courts within whose territory any part of the cause of action has arisen has the territorial jurisdiction to entertain cases and proceedings emanating from such cause of action in view of judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Navinchandra Majithia v. State of Maharashtra & Ors. (2000) 7 SCC 640. There cannot be any bar on the CJM at Agra in directing registration of the said FIR in the instant case. It is submitted that the averments in the said FIR and the ones registered at Jaipur are distinct as the events relate to distinct and different transactions and the Petitioner is attempting to conflate the same with the mala fide intent of misguiding this Hon’ble Court. It is specifically denied that the petitioner and his criminal associates have not met the representatives of respondent no. 3 at their office in Agra. It is submitted that the petitioner along with his criminal associates had met the representatives of respondent no. 3 at their commercial office in Agra at the address mentioned in the foregoing paras. It is specifically denied that the respondent no. 3, Company did not have any office in Agra at the time the transactions under question were entered into between the petitioner and his criminal associates and respondent no. 3. The respondent no. 3, Company is a Group Company of the Rajdarbar Group whose corporate office is 210, Heera Talkies, Bypass Road, District Agra, Agra. The construction work has been done by the authorized representative of the company Narendra Kumar Agarwal, who is originally a resident of 70, Nehru Nagar, Agra, from time to time in the office located at 70, Nehru Nagar, Agra. In relation to the purchase of land, several meetings and discussions have been held with the late Shri Rakesh Kumar Garg, Chairman of Rajdarbar Group, and the authorized representative Shri Narendra Agarwal in the office located at Agra by the Petitioner and his criminal associates Ram Prasad Chopra and Prabhu Lal Chopra, etc. Therefore, the FIR has been correctly registered on the cause of action related to this matter. In any event, the question whether any part of the transaction has taken place in Agra or not is a matter of investigation and the Police must be allowed to conduct its investigation into the matter. In the event no offence is found to have been committed a closure report will be filed in relation to the same.
45. It is wrong to state that the respondent no. 3 has wrongly roped in M/s. Rajasthan Land Developers Pvt. Ltd and its Directors in the instant case. It is reiterated that the Directors of M/s. Rajasthan Land Developers Pvt. Ltd had accompanied the petitioner to the office of the respondent no. 3 at the time they had made the false representations to the representatives of the respondent no. 3 and have been actively involved in duping the respondent no. 3. They were actively involved in the forgery and fabrication of documents and had meticulously conspired with the petitioner in committing the criminal acts. Thus, it can, by no stretch of imagination, be argued that they did not have anything to do with the transactions under question. To that end, the fact that the petitioner has, in a his petition attempted to make a case for the Directors of M/s. Rajasthan Land Developers Pvt. Ltd clearly shows the collusion between them. Further, it is specifically denied that the respondent no. 3 had executed an agreement with the M/s. Rajasthan Land Developers Pvt. Ltd., on 29.05.2006 for purchase of a land parcel in the project named Silver City, Jaipur. In this regard, it is submitted that the alleged agreement dated 29.05.2006 is a forged and fabricated document having no legal basis or value. It is specifically denied that the respondent no. 3 had entered into any such agreement with M/s. Rajasthan Land Developers Pvt. Ltd. or its directors. The said agreement has been fabricated and forged as an afterthought by backdating with the attempt to misappropriate and usurp the amount paid by the Respondent No. 3 to the Petitioner and M/s. Rajasthan Land Developers Pvt. Ltd. and its Directors, being Prabhu Lal Chopra and Ramprasad Chopra, for payment towards the transfer of the land in favor of the respondent no. 3, Company as mentioned in the complaint and the said FIR. It is specifically denied that the Respondent No. 3 Company has to make any payments to the Petitioner or M/s. Rajasthan Land Developers Pvt. Ltd. for any purpose. The money paid to M/s. Rajasthan Land Developers Pvt. Ltd. was in relation to the transaction under scrutiny in the Impugned FIR. This Agreement has been forged and fabricated by the Petitioner in collusion with his criminal associates solely for the purpose of creating and forging a false defence in the instant case and misleading this Hon’ble Court. It is submitted that the fabricated and forged agreement is being relied upon by the Petitioner mala fidely to mislead this Hon’ble Court.
46. In any event, it is submitted that the story concocted by the petitioner in the document under question is completely false and bogus and the contents of the impugned F.I.R and the application under Section 156(3) filed by the respondent no. 3 are correct. It is submitted that the investigation agencies are acting in collusion with the petitioner and had submitted a completely bogus report with the sole intent of protecting the petitioner and his criminal associates. It is specifically denied that the allegations made by the respondent no. 3 against the petitioner are false and bogus. It is specifically stated that all acts of the investigating officer are mala fide and have been carried out by them in collusion and conspiracy with the petitioner to protect the petitioner from the clutches of law. It is submitted that the Chief Judicial Magistrate had, after due application of mind and consideration of the applicable law, had rightly directed the SHO to carry out further investigation in relation to the Impugned FIR. This clearly shows that the proceedings under Sec. 182 IPC initiated by the police are completely mala fide and have been initiated with the sole intent of causing prejudice to the respondent no. 3. It is specifically denied that the offence was not committed within the local jurisdiction of the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Agra. From the facts aforesaid, it is evident that the part cause of action for the offence was committed within the local jurisdiction of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Agra. Interestingly, it is pertinent to note that the petitioner appears to have access to documents showing that the SHO, PS Hari Parvath had allegedly forwarded a copy of the complaint to the Deputy Commission Police, Jaipur requesting them to carry out investigation in the matter. In this regard, it is pertinent to note that when the respondent no. 3 had sought information regarding the same through RTI, the same was denied however the petitioner seems to have access to confidential documents available only with the investigating agencies. This clearly shows that the investigating agencies and petitioner are acting in collusion with each other.
47. It is submitted that the attempts on part of the petitioner in protecting the other individuals named as accused in the impugned FIR clearly shows that they are acting in collusion with each other. It is wrong to allege that the respondent no. 3 is attempting to humiliate and harass the petitioner. The impugned FIR is liable to be quashed and the petitioner ought to be protected. The petitioner is a history sheeter with over 300 FIRs having been registered against him. Further, the petitioner is also absconding from the investigation in relation to FIR No. 95/2018 and thus no protection ought to be granted to the petitioner in relation to the impugned FIR. The Petitioner has made completely false averments before this Hon’ble Court and has blatantly misrepresented and suppressed material facts, including the fact that over 300 FIRs have been registered against him in Jaipur and he is the first history-sheeter in Jaipur. Further, it is reiterated that the instant petition is not maintainable in law in view of alternate efficacious remedies available with the petitioner as stated above.
48. Before proceedings to consider the rival contentions, we find from the record that a coordinate Bench of this court passed the interim order dated 29.11.2022 which is quoted herein below :-
“Heard Shri Dilip Kumar, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Shri Vinayak Mithal, learned counsel for the petitioner, Shri Ram Kishore Pandey and Shri Ajay Kumar Bashist Singh, learned counsel appearing for the third respondent and learned A.G.A. for the State respondents.
Petitioner by means of the instant petition seeks the following reliefs:
i) issue an appropriate writ, order or direction quashing the impugned order passed by the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, District Agra, allowing Application No. 751 of 2021 (Pink City Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. v. Gyan Chandra Agarwal & others) on 30.11.2021;
ii) issue an appropriate writ, order or direction quashing the impugned FIR bearing Case Crime No. 508 of 2021 lodged at Police Station Hari Parvath, District Agra on 11.12.2021 under Sections 420, 406, 467, 468, 471 and 120-B IPC;
iii) issue an appropriate writ, order or direction quashing the impugned order passed by the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, District Agra, in Misc. Case No. 258/2022 (Pink City Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. v. Gyan Chandra Agarwal & others) on 28.07.2022;
iv) issue an appropriate writ, order or direction commanding the respondents not to arrest the petitioner or take any coercive action against the petitioner in FIR bearing Case Crime No. 508 of 2021 lodged at Police Station Hari Parvath, District Agra on 11.12.2021 under Sections 420, 406, 467, 468, 471 and 120-B of IPC;
v) issue any other appropriate writ, order or direction which this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper under the facts and circumstances of the present case.”
It is submitted that the first petitioner is the Additional Director of the complainant-company. It appears that an agreement was entered into between the parties for purchasing parcel of land at Jaipur for housing colony. It appears that some parcel of land was purchased, thereafter, additional land could not be purchased for the company, consequently, the dispute arose between the parties. Multiple FIR came to be lodged by the informant against the petitioner and other companies; it is not in dispute that after investigation Rajasthan Police at Jaipur, has filed final report; on protest, further investigation was directed, which again was followed by closer report. It is submitted that thereafter showing the cause of action at Agra city, where the branch office of the informant-company is alleged to be situated the present FIR came to be lodged. The civil police at Agra after investigation submitted closure report and at the same time, the Investigating Officer found that it was a false case; further, investigation revealed that the dispute, inter se, parties is of purely civil nature, but, to mount pressure upon the petitioner, informant-company has given criminal colour; further, permission was sought for prosecution of the complainant under Section 182 IPC; Superintendent of Police vide communication dated 22.3.2022, remitted the matter to the concerned police station at Jaipur stating that civil police at Agra lacks jurisdiction in the matter; no part of the alleged crime had arisen at Agra. It appears that the complainant filed protest petition before the concerned Magistrate and the learned Magistrate directed further investigation, which is also under challenge. In this backdrop, it is submitted that it is a case of gross misuse of criminal process to coerce the petitioner to make settlement in the pending civil and arbitration cases. It is further urged that the learned Magistrate would lack territorial jurisdiction to pass the impugned order for further investigation.
In rebuttal, learned counsel appearing for the informant submits that the writ petition would not be maintainable as petitioner has remedy to raise challenge to the order of the Magistrate directing further investigation before the revisional court or in proceedings under Section 482 Cr.P.C.
Be that as it may, primary question that arises is whether Agra Police, as well as, Magistrate would have territorial jurisdiction to entertain the matter. It is not being disputed that multiple civil and arbitration cases, inter se, parties are pending.
Matter requires consideration.
All the respondents may file counter affidavit within four weeks. Petitioners shall have two weeks, thereafter, to file rejoinder affidavit.
List thereafter.
Considering the facts and circumstances of the case as briefly discussed above, as an interim measure, till the next date of listing, the effect and operation of the order dated 28.07.2022 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Agra, shall remain stayed. ”
49. Another coordinate Bench of this court has passed the following order dated 15.11.2025 which is quoted herein below:-
“Parties have substantially exchanged affidavits, with only a rejoinder to be filed which the petitioner desires to do in response to the counter affidavit filed by respondent no. 3. He may do so by the next date fixed.
A seriously arguable question is involved, as would appear from the detailed interim order dated 29.11.2022, amongst others, affecting the jurisdiction of the Police at Agra or, for that matter in U.P., to investigate the crime, apart from the issue whether the liability involved, if any, is essentially civil in nature.
Admit.
List for hearing on 9th December, 2025 at the top of the list.
The interim order dated 29.11.2022 is made absolute.
Let this order be communicated to the Station House Officer, Police Station- Hari Parvath, District- Agra through the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Agra by the Registrar (Compliance) by Monday i.e. 17.11.2025. ”
50. The relevant provisions of Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 regarding territorial jurisdiction of inquiry and trial are as follows :-
“177. Ordinary place of inquiry and trial.?Every offence shall ordinarily be inquired into and tried by a Court within whose local jurisdiction it was committed.
178. Place of inquiry or trial.?(a) When it is uncertain in which of several local areas an offence was committed, or
(b) where an offence is committed partly in one local area and partly in another, or
(c) where an offence is a continuing one, and continues to be committed in more local areas than
one, or
(d) where it consists of several acts done in different local areas,
it may be inquired into or tried by a Court having jurisdiction over any of such local areas.
179. Offence triable where act is done or consequence ensues.?When an act is an offence by reason of anything which has been done and of a consequence which has ensued, the offence may be inquired into or tried by a Court within whose local jurisdiction such thing has been done or such consequence has ensued.
180. Place of trial where act is an offence by reason of relation to other offence.?When an act is an offence by reason of its relation to any other act which is also an offence or which would be an offence if the doer were capable of committing an offence, the first-mentioned offence may be inquired into or tried by a Court within whose local jurisdiction either act was done.
181. Place of trial in case of certain offences.?(1) Any offence of being a thug, or murder committed by a thug, of dacoity, of dacoity with murder, of belonging to a gang of dacoits, or of escaping from custody, may be inquired into or tried by a Court within whose local jurisdiction the offence was committed or the accused person is found.
(2) Any offence of kidnapping or abduction of a person may be inquired into or tried by a Court within whose local jurisdiction the person was kidnapped or abducted or was conveyed or concealed or detained.
(3) Any offence of theft, extortion or robbery may be inquired into or tried by a Court within whose local jurisdiction the offence was committed or the stolen property which is the subject of the offence was possessed by any person committing it or by any person who received or retained such property knowing or having reason to believe it to be stolen property.
(4) Any offence of criminal misappropriation or of criminal breach of trust may be inquired into or tried by a Court within whose local jurisdiction the offence was committed or any part of the property which is the subject of the offence was received or retained, or was required to be returned or accounted for, by the accused person.
(5) Any offence which includes the possession of stolen property may be inquired into or tried by a Court within whose local jurisdiction the offence was committed or the stolen property was possessed by any person who received or retained it knowing or having reason to believe it to be stolen property”.
51. A bare perusal of the aforesaid provisions of the Cr.P.C. show that the investigation of a case by the Investigating Officer of the police depends upon a number of factors contained in Sections 177, 178, 179 and 181 Cr.P.C. In a case where a trial can be held in any of the places falling within the purview of the aforesaid provisions, the investigation can be conducted by the Officer-in-Charge of the police station concerned having jurisdiction to investigate. As per Section 181(4) Cr.P.C., an offence of criminal misappropriation or criminal breach of trust may be inquired into or tried by a court within whose local jurisdiction the offence was committed, or any part of the property which is the subject matter of the offence was received or retained, or was required to be returned or accounted for by the accused. In the present case, there are allegations of criminal breach of trust and cheating levelled against the petitioner together and it is clear that the same were allegedly committed in Jaipur, State of Rajasthan, and never in the State of Uttar Pradesh. As per the clear allegations made against the petitioner in the application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. and the consequent F.I.R., no part of the offence of criminal breach of trust was committed in the State of Uttar Pradesh at Agra. As per Section 177 Cr.P.C., the ordinary place of inquiry and trial in the present case is Jaipur, State of Rajasthan. As regards Section 178 Cr.P.C., there is no uncertainty as to the local area in which the offence was committed. It is the admitted case of the petitioner that all the alleged offences were committed in Jaipur, State of Rajasthan. The present case is also not covered under Section 179 Cr.P.C., since no consequential act of any alleged offence was committed at Agra in the State of Uttar Pradesh. As per Section 180 Cr.P.C., when an act is an offence by reason of its relation to another offence, the first-mentioned offence may be inquired into or tried by a court within whose local jurisdiction the first-mentioned offence was committed. Clearly, the first-mentioned offences took place in Jaipur, State of Rajasthan, and after investigation, they were not found to be proved. Therefore, it is clear from the aforesaid provisions that no part of the cause of action accrued within the territorial jurisdiction of any court in the State of Uttar Pradesh. It has come on record that, at the time of the commission of the alleged offences, respondent no. 3, company, did not had any office in Agra.
52. It has been pointed out by the learned Senior Counsel that the office of the company at Agra came into existence in the year 2015, whereas the alleged offence and dispute took place during the period from the year 2005 to the year 2017 in the State of Rajasthan. We have found that, in the application made to the Magistrate at Agra, the relevant dates for making out the cause of action were deliberately concealed by respondent no. 3, and a belated application was filed before the Magistrate at Agra, who did not ascertained whether the offences alleged were made out against the petitioner or not. The implication of the petitioner under Sections 420 and 406 IPC simultaneously has also been deprecated by the Apex Court in its judgment in the case of Delhi Race Club (1940) Ltd. & Ors. vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr., reported in Criminal Appeal No. 3114 of 2024. Paragraph Nos. 25, 26 and 27 of the aforesaid judgment may be usefully referred to hereinbelow:
” 25. What can be discerned from the above is that the offences of criminal breach of trust (Section 406 IPC) and cheating (Section 420 IPC) have specific ingredients.In order to constitute a criminal breach of trust (Section 406 IPC): -There must be entrustment with person for property or dominion over the property, and The person entrusted: -a) dishonestly misappropriated or converted property to his own use, orb) dishonestly used or disposed of the property or willfully suffers any other person so to do in violation of:
i. any direction of law prescribing the method in which the trust is discharged; or
ii. legal contract touching the discharge of trust.
Similarly, in respect of an offence under Section 420 IPC, the essential ingredients are:
1) deception of any person, either by making a false or misleading representation or by other action or by omission;
2) fraudulently or dishonestly inducing any person to deliver any property, or
3) the consent that any persons shall retain any property and finally intentionally inducing that person to do or omit to do anything which he would not do or omit (see: Harmanpreet Singh Ahluwalia v. State of Punjab, (2009) 7 SCC 712 : (2009) Cr.L.J. 3462 (SC))
26. Further, in both the aforesaid sections, mens rea i.e. intention to defraud or the dishonest intention must be present, and in the case of cheating it must be there from the very beginning or inception.
27. In our view, the plain reading of the complaint fails to spell out any of the aforesaid ingredients noted above. We may only say, with a view to clear a serious misconception of law in the mind of the police as well as the courts below, that if it is a case of the complainant that offence of criminal breach of trust as defined under Section 405 of IPC, punishable under Section 406 of IPC, is committed by the accused, then in the same breath it cannot be said that the accused has also committed the offence of cheating as defined and explained in Section 415 of the IPC, punishable under Section 420 of the IPC.”
53. The Apex Court, in the case of Om Prakash Ambadkar v. State of Maharashtra, 2025 INSC 139, clearly held in paragraph 11 that the Magistrate is required to apply his judicial mind to ascertain whether the allegations levelled in the complaint constitute any cognizable offence or not. He is not required to ascertain whether the complaint is false or otherwise, but he is required to consider whether the necessary ingredients constituting the alleged offences are borne out on a plain reading of the complaint or not. In the present case, we do not find any such application of mind by the Magistrate. Upon perusal of the F.I.R. and the application of respondent no. 3 under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C., we find that the Magistrate has mechanically reproduced the allegations made in the complaint by respondent no. 3 in his order and has merely stated that, prima facie, the commission of a cognizable offences is made out against the accused. Such an order, forming the basis of the impugned F.I.R., cannot be upheld.
54. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner has relied upon a recent judgment of the Apex Court and has submitted that the issue involved in the petition is similar to that of the judgment passed by the Apex Court in the case of Arunachal Pradesh vs. Kamal Agarwal and Ors. Etc. passed in Criminal Appeal Nos. —- of 2024 (Arising out of SLP (Crl.) Nos. 8663-8665 of 2023) and has submitted that the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the aforesaid case found that the offence was committed by the accused in the State of Rajasthan but the F.I.R was lodged in the State of Arunachal Pradesh. The Apex Court dealt with issue from the following are quoted herein below :-
“5.5. As already noted above, two sets of petitions were filed before two different High Courts namely Gauhati High Court and Rajasthan High Court. The challenge before the High Court was primarily on two grounds, firstly, that no part of offence had been committed in Arunachal Pradesh as such there was lack of complete territorial jurisdiction for registration of FIR in Arunachal Pradesh. The Police ought not to have investigated the said matter for the reason that all the accused persons were residents of Rajasthan, the properties were situated in Rajasthan, the transfer by the sale deed with respect to the property was also in Rajasthan, even the power of attorney holder and the complainant were residents of Rajasthan and therefore, the FIR ought to be quashed on this ground alone.
5.6. The second ground taken was that even if it is assumed that the State of Arunachal Pradesh would have jurisdiction to entertain the FIR and investigate, it was purely a civil dispute relating to transaction of funds and transfer of properties and being purely a civil/commercial dispute, the lodging of the FIR was just a misuse of the process of law and the same ought to be quashed, in view of the law laid down in case of State of Haryana vs. Bhajan Lal. The Gauhati High Court dismissed the petition for quashing which has given rise to the appeal filed by Chandra Mohan Badaya whereas Rajasthan High Court quashed the proceedings which has given rise to the appeals filed by the State of Arunachal Pradesh.
6. Before entering into the arguments advanced by the parties, we may briefly refer to the contents of the complaint being FIR No.227 of 2017. According to the complaint, Rajesh Natani and Chandra Mohan Badaya contacted the complainant firm requesting for amount of Rs.1 Crore for consideration /exchange of land/building situated between Plot No.A-47 to A55, Sikar House, near Chandpole, Jaipur, Rajasthan. The said amount was deposited in four instalments on 19.07.2016, 20.07.2016, 22.07.2016 and 25.07.2016 in the accounts of Shri Ram Enterprises, A.R. Properties and Colonisers, Shashi Natani w/o Rajesh Natani and Chandra Mohan Badaya, as full payment for the sale of the aforesaid land/building. Thereafter, when the complainant visited the place of land/building, the accused persons refused to hand over the same. As such, it was clear that the accused persons had cheated resulting into suffering, mental agony, and financial loss. The accused persons failed to fulfil the above conditions of transferring the land. All the accused persons have conspired to cheat/commit fraud with the applicant. All the accused persons have earned huge amount through unlawful means and instead of fulfilling their promises, they threatened the complainant with consequences. Finding no other alternative, the FIR had been lodged for taking appropriate action against the accused persons.
7. The FIR mentions the address of the complainant Mr. Anil Agrawal to be the address of the firm M/s Shiv Bhandar in Pasighat, East Siang District, Arunachal Pradesh. The residential address of the complainant Anil Agrawal is not given in the FIR. The address of all the six accused named in the FIR is that of Jaipur City, Rajasthan. The property for which the alleged payment of Rs.1 Crore is said to have been made is also situate in Jaipur, Rajasthan. The transaction of bank details is not mentioned in the FIR.
8. Apart from the fact that the complainant is said to be placed at Arunachal Pradesh, no other fact relevant to the alleged offence is said to be in or within the State of Arunachal Pradesh but still the FIR had been registered there. Clearly, the reason for lodging the FIR was that the accused persons were not willing to execute the sale deed for which they had taken the sale consideration of Rs.1 Crore.
9. The Gauhati High Court dismissed the petitions for quashing on the finding that no exceptional circumstances exist calling for quashing of the proceedings. Whereas, the Rajasthan High Court proceeded to quash the proceedings on the ground that no part of the cause of action had arisen in the State of Arunachal Pradesh rather entire cause of action was in the state of Rajasthan, hence, the Police/Court in Arunachal Pradesh lacked territorial jurisdiction to entertain the FIR and all subsequent proceedings.
10. Surprisingly, the complainant M/s Shiv Bhandar has not come forward to challenge the order of the Rajasthan High Court. It is the State of Arunachal Pradesh which has challenged the order of the Rajasthan High Court.
11. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material on record in both the cases.
12. We are of the view that the matter was purely civil in nature. It was a case of money advancing for which no written document was executed to indicate its purpose or import as such whether it was a loan advance or an advance payment for transfer of property being land/building situate in Jaipur, is not borne out from any records. Such claim of the complainant that it was for transfer of property for land/building prescribed above, would be a matter of evidence to be led and established in the Court of law rather than the police investigating the same and finding out. It is not the case of complainant as stated in FIR that the plot/land as alleged by them which was to be transferred to them did not exist or had been sold or transferred to somebody else and therefore, there was an element of cheating by the accused persons. If the accused persons were not transferring the land and if the complainant could establish an agreement/contract with respect to the same in a Court of law, it ought to have filed a civil suit for appropriate relief. Appellant Chandra Mohan Badaya had already explained as to how he had already repaid Rs. 37 lacs through bank transaction and also transferred two properties worth more than Rupees One Crore. All these aspects could be thrashed out before a competent Civil Court. It could not be said to be a case of cheating.
13. A simple reading of the FIR itself does not disclose any cognizable offence for which the FIR should be registered and maintained. Although Chandra Mohan Badaya appellant has sought to explain that he had already returned Rs.37 lakhs by bank transfer to the complainant and had further executed two transfer deeds in favour of the wife and sister-in-law of Anil Agrawal, the power of attorney holder which valued at total amount of more than Rs.1.45 Crores. Even if we do not accept this contention as the same would be subject matter of evidence, what we find is that the complaint lodged by the respondent No.2 was not worth being registered as a complaint and that too in the State of Arunachal Pradesh.
14. The High Court of Rajasthan had rightly found as a matter of fact considering all aspects of the matter that the offence, if any, although according to us, no offence is made out, would be within the territorial jurisdiction of Rajasthan and not Arunachal Pradesh.
15. The State of Arunachal Pradesh ought to have been happy getting rid of an unnecessary Criminal Case being registered and tried in Arunachal Pradesh Why the State of Arunachal Pradesh has approached this Court is also a question to be answered by the said State when the complainant in a matter relating to civil/commercial dispute is not coming forward to defend its FIR which has been quashed by the Rajasthan High Court. Normally, in a given case where issue is of territorial jurisdiction we could have directed to transfer the investigation or the trial to the State where the cause of action would lie but in the present case, we find that no offence as such is made out.
16. We are conscious of the fact that Pawan Agarwal, one of the Respondents herein in Criminal Appeal arising out of SLP No. 8663-8665/2023, had earlier filed Criminal Petition No. 110/2021 under section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 before the Gauhati High Court and the said petition was dismissed vide order dated 26.11.2021. We are also conscious of the fact that SLP (Crl.) No. 999/2022 filed by him was dismissed as not pressed before this Court. However, today we are quashing the entire FIR Case No. 227/2017 registered at Police Station Pasi Ghat, District Siang East, Arunachal Pradesh and the consequential proceedings thereto. Rajasthan High Court, in the subsequent petition moved by Pawan Agarwal, has after noticing the proceedings initiated in Gauhati High Court has given relief to Pawan Agarwal and other respondents on the ground that no cause of action arose in Arunachal Pradesh. It is also important to note that after the Gauhati High Court had dismissed the Criminal Petition No. 110/2021 chargesheet was filed and we have considered the same. We have found the dispute to be of a civil nature and have quashed the FIR Case No. 227/2017. Hence, in exercise of the power under Article 136 of the Constitution of India we are not inclined to disturb the findings in favour of Pawan Agarwal in SB Criminal Writ Petition No. 989/2022 by Rajasthan High Court. Once proceedings are being quashed against all the other accused named in the FIR and in the chargesheet and considering the nature of findings we have recorded, proceedings against Pawan Agarwal cannot alone continue.
17. We accordingly set aside the order of the Gauhati High Court and allow the appeal of Chandra Mohan Badaya and quash the entire proceedings arising out of FIR No.227 of 2017. We further dismiss the three appeals filed by the State of Arunachal Pradesh.”
55. Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the number of other judgments quoted hereinbelow :-
“1. Kishan Singh v. Gurpal Singh [(2010 8 SCC 775]
2. Sunil Kumar Singh v. State of U.P. and Another [Criminal Revision No. 1041/2016]
3. Ripudaman Saharan v. State of U.P. and Others [Application U/S 482 No. 2694 / 2003]
4. Navinchandra N. Majithia vs. State of Maharashtra and Others [(2000) 7 SCC 640]
5. Krishna Lal Chawla and Others v. State of U.P. and Others [(2021) 5 SCC 435]
6. Amitbhai Anilchandra Shah v. CBI and Another [(20130 6 SCC 348]
7. Shailesh Kumar Singh Alias Shailesh R. Singh v. State of U.P. and others [(2025) SCC Online 1462]
8. Prof. R.K. Vijayasarathy and Another v. Sudha Seetharam and Another [(2019) 16 SCC 739]”
56. Learned counsel for the respondent no. 3 has also placed reliance on the following judgments:-
“1. Munnesh v. State of U.P., 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1319
2. Smt. Archana Mishra v. State of U.P., 2026 AHC-LKO 21677
3. Arun P. Gidh v. Chandraprakash Singh, 2024 SCC OnLine Bom 1028
4. CBI v. Tapan Kumar Singh, (2003) 6 SCC 175
5. Lalita Kumari v. State of U.P. (2014) 2 SCC 1
6. Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Maharashtra and Ors., (2021) 19 SCC 401
7. Directorate of Enforcement v. Niraj Tyagi & Ors., 2024 5 SCC 419″
57. The Apex Court in the case of Kishan Singh v. Gurpal Singh (supra) has held in paragraph 21 that early reporting of occurrence by the informant with all its vivid details gives an assurance regarding truth of his version. In case of delay explanation is required to be furnished but in this case, as considered above, the stale claim of about 15 years has been raised before the court without giving any date of the incident forming cause of action and giving any explanation for the dealy in rasing the same, therefore, the prosecution version is clearly doubtful as held by the Apex Court in the case of Sunil Kumar Singh v. State of U.P. (supra) and Ripudaman Saharan v. State of U.P.(supra)The Apex Court has depricated the filing of multiple complaints for the same cause of action in the case of Krishna Lal Chawla and Others v. State of U.P. (supra) and Amitbhai Anilchandra Shah v. CBI and Another, (supra). The dispute between the parties is civil in nature and repeated efforts have been made to give it colour of criminal dispute which has been depricated in number of judgments by the Apex Court.
Now coming to the authorities cited on behalf of the counsel for the respondent no. 3.
58. We find that the judgment in the case of Munnesh v. State of U.P. (supra) pertains to a bail matter in which the bail application of an accused was rejected on account of non-disclosure of his criminal antecedents. The said judgment is clearly not relevant for deciding the present case. The judgment in the case of Smt. Archana Mishra v. State of U.P. (supra), cited by the counsel for respondent no. 3, relates to a challenge to the orders passed by the Special C.J.M. (Custom) by filing a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and not by filing a petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.
59. We find that in this case the order of Magistrate directing the registration of F.I.R by police and its investigation has been challenged along with the F.I.R lodged in pursuance of the order of Magistrate and therefore the aforesaid judgment is of no help to respondent no. 3.
60. The argument of the learned counsel for the respondent no. 3 that the petitioner ought to have filed revision against the order dated 30.11.2021 passed by Chief Judicial Magistrate, Agra allowing the application for respondent no. 3 under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C has been turned down by the Apex Court in the case of Arun P. Gidh v. Chandraprakash Singh, (supra) where the Apex Court has held that no revision lies against such order.
61. The Apex Court has also held in the said judgment that the Magistrate cannot pass a mechanical or routine order directing the registration of an F.I.R. and investigation of the case by the police. Therefore, the judgment cited by the learned counsel for respondent no. 3 is, in fact, against the case of respondent no. 3 before this Court.
62. The judgment in the case of Superintendent of Police, CBI v. Tapan Kumar Singh (supra) relates to the power of the police officer to investigate a cognizable offence on the basis of information recorded in the G.D. entry and has nothing to do with the issue involved in the present case.
63. In the case of Lalita Kumari v. State of U.P. (supra), the Apex Court held that registration of an F.I.R. is mandatory under Section 154 Cr.P.C. upon receipt of information disclosing the commission of a cognizable offence. In the present case, however, the F.I.R. was not registered directly by the police under Section 154 Cr.P.C.; rather, it was registered pursuant to the order passed by the learned Magistrate under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. As discussed hereinabove, before directing the registration of the F.I.R. and investigation by the police, the learned Magistrate failed to apply his judicial mind to the allegations made in the complaint and passed the impugned order in a mechanical manner. Consequently, the ratio laid down in Lalita Kumari (supra) has no application to the facts of the present case.
64. In the case of Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Maharashtra and Others (supra), the Apex Court deprecated the practice of routinely staying further investigation by passing interim orders. However, we find that, in the present case, the investigation was stayed by a reasoned order passed by the Coordinate Division Bench of this Court dated 29.11.2022, as quoted hereinabove, and the said interim order was subsequently confirmed by another Coordinate Division Bench by order dated 15.11.2025. Therefore, the said judgment is clearly distinguishable on facts. The other judgments cited by the learned counsel for respondent no. 3 are also of no assistance to him, as they have no application to the facts of the present case or to the legal issues involved herein.
65. After an overall consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case and the issues involved, we are of the considered view that the impugned order dated 30.11.2021 passed by the learned C.J.M., Agra, allowing Application No. 751 of 2021 (Pink City Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. vs. Gyan Chandra Agarwal), the consequential F.I.R. registered as Case Crime No. 508 of 2021 at Police Station Hari Parvat, District Agra, on 11.12.2021, under Sections 420, 406, 467, 468, 471 and 120-B of the IPC, in pursuance of the aforesaid order, as well as the impugned order dated 28.07.2022 passed by the learned C.J.M., Agra in Miscellaneous Case No. 258 of 2022 (Pink City Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. vs. Gyan Chandra Agarwal), deserve to be quashed and are hereby quashed.
66. The writ petition stands allowed.
(Vinai Kumar Dwivedi,J.) (Siddharth,J.)
July 20, 2026
Rohit
Â
Â
