Rajasthan High Court: In a petition filed by a daughter (petitioner) seeking quashment of FIR against her for hatching criminal conspiracy with her father (accused) with regard to causing loss to the complainant, a single-judge bench of Farjand Ali, J., held that the rule of vicarious liability is not applicable in the present matter as no case is made out for the prosecution to book the petitioner as an accused.
In the instant matter, the petitioner is the daughter of the accused, who has been charge-sheeted, and criminal proceedings against him are ongoing concerning the allegations in the FIR state that the complainant had entered into an agreement for the sale of property with accused, who received money from the complainant. It was alleged that the money was received under dishonest inducement. However, the investigation regarding the petitioner was kept pending. The petitioner’s name does not appear in the FIR or in any statements, and no evidence suggests her involvement in the alleged offence.
The prosecution contended that, after two years, the accused transferred a portion of the money to the petitioner’s bank account and based on this, she is implicated in the case, as the money was linked to the complainant’s payment.
However, the petitioner contended that a father transferring money to his daughter does not, by itself, establish criminal liability. It was admitted that the complainant never transferred any money directly to the petitioner. It was contended that the transaction in question occurred two years after the alleged offence, further weakening the case against the petitioner.
The Court examined the FIR and supporting materials and noted that there exists no evidence to show that the petitioner had any role in the alleged inducement or deception. The Court asserted that “there is no whisper or even tissue of evidence to array her as an accused.”
The Court noted that the prosecution’s case was solely based on a bank transfer that occurred two years after the alleged fraudulent act, which was insufficient to implicate the petitioner. The Court determined that mere receipt of money from a father does not establish criminal involvement in the alleged offences. The Court held that “the rule of vicarious liability is not applicable here.”
The Court held that no prima facie case is made against the petitioner. The Court quashed and set aside all proceedings against the petitioner arising from FIR.
[Bharti Sharma v. State of Rajasthan, S.B. Criminal Misc (Pet.) No. 1328/2018, Decided on 11-02-2025]
Advocates who appeared in this case :
Mr. Nishant Bora, Counsel for the Petitioner
Mr. Neeraj Kr. Gurjar, AAG; Mr. Vikram Singh Rajpurohit, Dy.G.A.; Mr. C.S. Kotwani and Ms. Swati Shekhar Kotwani, Counsel for the Respondents
