04/09/2025
Viral Video of ₹5 Crore Fraud:J&K High Court stayed an FIR against a Srinagar-based businessman accused of ₹5 crore fraud. The FIR is challenged on the grounds that the dispute is civil in nature, the transaction occurred in Dubai, and proceedings have already started there.
Order reads:
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner at length and perused the record.
It has been vehemently argued by learned counsel for the petitioner that,
from a bare perusal of the contents of the FIR, it can be inferred that the alleged
transaction between the petitioner and the private respondent took place in Dubai,
United Arab Emirates, qua the shops in question.
It is further submitted that the private respondent has already initiated civil
proceedings against the petitioner before a competent court of law in Dubai on
the basis of an alleged agreement executed between the parties and has also
obtained an order of status quo therein. Thus, according to the petitioner’s
counsel, the entire transaction has taken place in Dubia, and at no point of time
did any monetary transaction occur within the jurisdiction of Police Station
Budgam.
On this premise, it is argued that the registration of the impugned FIR is
nothing but an abuse of process of law, aimed at pressurizing the petitioner into
yielding to the illegal demands of the private respondent. Learned counsel for the
petitioner further contends that the facts reflected in the FIR clearly emerges that
the dispute between the parties is essentially of a civil nature. The very purpose
behind registration of the impugned FIR appears to be an attempt by the private
respondent to convert a civil dispute into a criminal one with the sole objective
of pressurizing the petitioner and extracting money from him.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has further submitted that breach of
contract, even if assumed, per se does not constitute the offence of cheating
unless fraudulent or dishonest intention is shown to exist at the inception of the
transaction, which is apparently missing in the present case. Merely on the
allegation of failure to honour a promise, will not be sufficient to initiate criminal
proceeding for cheating. On this ground alone, the impugned FIR is liable to be
quashed.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has further argued that from a bare
perusal of the contents of the FIR, it is apparently clear that the complainant
himself has specifically stated in his complaint that the parties had entered into a
transaction for purchase of two shops at Dubai, which has already been the
subject matter of adjudication before a Magistrate at Dubai. It is further submitted
that, as a consequence of the said transaction, the petitioner had handed over a
security cheque representing the entire amount to the private respondent, besides
the alleged assurance that the property would be transferred in his name.
Even if the contents of the FIR are taken at their face value, it can safely
be inferred that not only did the transaction take place in Dubai, but the series of
acts between the parties in relation to sale and purchase of the shops completely
exclude the element of cheating on the part of the petitioner.
Thus, viewed from any angle, the impugned FIR, according to learned
counsel for the petitioner, cannot sustain the test of law and is liable to be
quashed.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the record. A prima
facie case for indulgence is made out.
Issue notice to the respondents subject to the petitioner taking requisite
steps for effecting service upon the respondents within a week’s time.
List on 4th of November, 2025
In the meantime, subject to objections from the other side, and till the next
date of hearing before the Bench, the operation of the impugned FIR shall remain
stayed.
Order on modification/alteration.
Justice Wasim Sadiq Nargal
