In a significant ruling, the Rajasthan High Court, under Justice Farjand Ali, quashed an FIR against a woman accused of fraud solely on the basis of receiving money from her father. The court emphasized that a financial transaction between family members does not automatically establish criminal liability unless there is direct involvement in the alleged offense.
Case Background
The case pertained to an FIR (No. 181/2016) registered at Police Station Ratangarh, District Churu, against the father of the petitioner, alleging offenses under Sections 452, 447, 380, 420, 467, and 468 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). The complainant had entered into an agreement to purchase a property from the accused and alleged that the seller fraudulently received an advance payment through dishonest inducement.
Two years after the transaction, a portion of the amount was transferred to the bank account of the accused’s daughter. Based on this transaction alone, she was implicated in the case, with the prosecution claiming that the money received in her account was linked to the fraudulent deal.
Important Legal Issues
The case raised the fundamental legal issue of whether a family member can be held criminally liable for merely receiving money without any direct involvement in an alleged offense. The prosecution attempted to establish that the financial transaction made her complicit in the fraud, despite no allegations of her participation in the original agreement.
Another key legal question was the applicability of vicarious liability in criminal proceedings, particularly in cases where no direct act of conspiracy, inducement, or deception was attributed to the accused individual.
Key Observations of the Court
After examining the FIR and the material on record, Justice Farjand Ali made several crucial observations:
1. No Evidence of Direct Involvement – The court noted that there was no mention of the petitioner’s role in the alleged fraud either in the FIR or in any witness statements.
“Presence of the petitioner is nowhere alleged either in the FIR or in the statement. There is no whisper or even tissue of evidence to array her as an accused.”
2. No Legal Basis for Vicarious Liability – The prosecution’s argument was solely based on the assumption that since the accused’s father transferred money to her, she was part of the alleged fraudulent scheme. The court rejected this argument, stating:
“A father can transfer some money to his daughter, and the mere receipt of funds does not automatically implicate her in the alleged offense.”
3. Time Gap and Lack of Direct Benefit – The court observed that the financial transfer occurred nearly two years after the original transaction, making it insufficient to establish any culpability.
“There is no allegation of hatching criminal conspiracy by the petitioner with her father or any connivance with regard to giving inducement to the complainant and causing loss to him.”
Decision of the Court
After considering all aspects, the court held that there was no basis to proceed against the petitioner. It concluded that the mere fact that a father transferred money to his daughter does not create criminal liability in the absence of evidence linking her to the alleged fraud.
Accordingly, the court allowed the petition and quashed all proceedings against the petitioner in connection with FIR No. 181/2016.
