No Vicarious Liability: Rajasthan HC Quashes FIR Against Daughter Registered After Father In Criminal Case Transferred Her Some Money

The bench of JusticeFarjand Ali held that the rule of vicarious liability did not apply here. Neither there was any allegation of criminal conspiracy by the Petitioner with her father. She was not even alleged in the FIR or the statement of the complainant.

As per the FIR, the complainant had entered into an agreement to sale with the Petitioner's father for which an amount was delivered, allegedly under dishonest inducement, to the father.

As per the prosecution, after around two years, some of this amount was transferred to the Petitioner's account based on which she was booked as an accused in the case, since the amount was relatable to the one that was given by the complainant to the father.

After hearing the contentions, the Court held that,

“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…The rule of vicarious liability is not applicable here. The allegations are for committing offence under Section 420, 467, 468 of the IPC. 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.”

Furthermore, the Court also opined that a father could transfer some money to his daughter.

Accordingly, the FIR against the daughter-petitioner was set aside.

Title: Bharti Sharma v State of Rajasthan & Anr.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 63

Counsel(s) for the Petitioner: Mr. Nishant Bora

Counsel(s) for the Respondent: Mr. Neeraj Kr. Gurjar, AAG; Mr. Vikram Singh Rajpurohit, Dy.G.A; Mr. C.S. Kotwani; Ms. Swati Shekhar Kotwani