Broker Defence No Bar to Investigation: Rajasthan High Court Refuses to Quash Cheating FIR Over Lentil Import Deal

The complainant, proprietor of a Jodhpur pulses business, alleged that in August 2025 the first petitioner, associated with Global Link Commodity Pvt. Ltd., offered 250 metric tonnes of Australian red lentils, assuring that a Tariff Rate Quota (TRQ) certificate would make the import duty-free and profitable (para 2). He paid an advance of USD 7,625 (Rs 6,91,384), but was later told the 2025 quota had expired. The shipping documents reached the bank late; on assurances of reimbursement he paid Rs 23,00,000 in customs and clearing charges, the goods went to a new buyer and nothing was repaid (paras 2-2.2). An FIR under Sections 318(4), 316(2) and 61(2) BNS and Section 66D of the IT Act followed (paras 1, 2.3).

The Court accepted that inherent jurisdiction may be used where criminal proceedings are started merely to pressure a party in a civil dispute, but held that a commercial transaction or an available civil remedy does not by itself exclude criminality; the test is whether the FIR, taken at face value and as a whole, discloses cognizable offences (para 8). Quashing powers are used sparingly and without a mini-trial (paras 8.1-8.3). Here the FIR was not confined to non-payment: it alleged that the petitioners actively induced the complainant through representations about supply, the TRQ certificate and reimbursement of customs and clearing charges (para 9). Their position that they were only brokers and never received the money could not be examined in isolation; whether they were intermediaries or participants needed investigation, and payment into the seller's and the logistics company's accounts did not by itself rule out their participation (para 10). The parties pointed to competing communications, raising disputed facts unsuited to Section 528 BNSS (para 11). The Court was not persuaded that the dispute was purely civil (para 12).