Rajasthan HC Refuses To Quash Lentil-Import FIR, Says Commodity-Firm Representatives’ Alleged Role Needs Investigation

The complainant, proprietor of Renaissance Agri, alleged that the petitioners—representatives of Global Link Commodity Pvt. Ltd.—induced him to enter a lentil-import transaction by making representations about the goods, a Tariff Rate Quota (TRQ) Certificate, and reimbursement of customs-clearance expenses.

After the complainant paid an advance and incurred further expenses, the amounts were not reimbursed; the FIR also alleged delay in providing shipping documents and subsequent demands for shipping-line charges.

The FIR charged the petitioners under Sections 318(4), 316(2) and 61(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS), and Section 66D of the Information Technology Act, 2000.

The petitioners sought quashing under Section 528 BNSS, contending that they were only brokers and that the dispute was contractual.

Section 528 BNSS preserves the High Court’s inherent jurisdiction to quash proceedings, but that power is to be exercised sparingly.

Under State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, interference may be justified where the FIR, even accepted at face value and in its entirety, does not prima facie disclose an offence.

Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Maharashtra cautions that a quashing court should not assess the reliability of allegations or conduct a mini-trial.

The Court also applied the principle that the existence of a commercial transaction or civil remedy does not, by itself, exclude criminality; the allegations must be considered as a whole to determine whether they disclose cognizable offences.

The Court considered the allegations of inducement concerning the transaction, TRQ Certificate and reimbursement, together with the alleged non-reimbursement of the complainant’s expenses, delay in shipping documents and subsequent demand for charges.

The petitioners’ claim that they were only brokers and had not received the funds could not be assessed in isolation; the funds’ transfer to the seller and logistics company did not, on its own, rule out the petitioners’ alleged participation.

Because the parties relied on competing communications and the petitioners’ role and the circumstances of the transaction remained disputed, resolving those matters would require investigation rather than a mini-trial under Section 528 BNSS.

The Court therefore declined to find that the dispute was purely civil or that the allegations, taken at face value, disclosed no cognizable offence.

It directed that its observations should not prejudice the investigation or either party’s rights and contentions; pending applications, if any, were disposed of.