Back
2025 Supreme(SC) 1087
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
VIKRAM NATH, SANDEEP MEHTA, JJ.
Mala Choudhary & Anr. – Appellants
Versus
State Of Telangana & Anr. – Respondents
Criminal Appeal No(s). 3052 of 2025 (Arising out of SLP (Crl.) No (s). 10748 of 2023)
Decided on : 18-07-2025
For the Petitioner(s): Ms. Vanshaja Shukla, Adv. Ms. Divya Jyoti Singh, AOR Mr. Vineet Nagar, Adv.
For the Respondent(s): Ms. Devina Sehgal, AOR Mr. Yatharth Kansal, Adv. Mr. Tadimalla Bhaskar Gowtham, Adv. Ms. Ekta Swarup, Adv. Mr. Abishek.s, Adv. Mr. Sandeep Singh, AOR
IMPORTANT POINT
Complainant should be penalized with exemplary cost for misusing process of criminal law in a case which is of purely civil nature.
Headnote:
Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Sections 406 and 420 – Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 – Section 482 – Criminal breach of trust and cheating – Quashing petition – A plain and simple dispute involving non-execution of a registered sale deed in terms of so-called oral agreement to sell has been given cloak of a criminal case by misusing criminal machinery – This is a classic case of complainant (respondent No.2), who seems to be wielding some clout in State of Telangana, misusing process of police investigation so as to entangle accused appellants who are residents of New Delhi, in a totally false and frivolous prosecution for offences punishable under Sections 406 and 420 of IPC – Complainant has manipulated and distorted facts and has used its influence for getting FIR registered against appellants – Even from admitted allegations set out in complaint, there was no justification for registering FIR and rather complainant should have been instructed to avail appropriate remedy by approaching Civil Court – Rather than awarding interest to complainant, it is a fit case wherein complainant should be penalized with exemplary cost for misusing process of criminal law in a case which was of purely civil nature – High Court acted with absolute pedantic approach, while disposing of quashing petition filed by appellants in cryptic manner, without even touching merits of case – Criminal proceedings quashed and set aside – Cost of Rs. 10,00,000/- imposed on complainant – Cost shall be transferred to account of appellants. (Paras 9, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 21 and 22)
Facts of the case:
Appellants have approached this Court by way of instant appeal, under Article 136 of Constitution of India, for assailing final order dated 28th April, 2023 passed by High Court of Telangana at Hyderabad in Criminal Petition No. 7869 of 2021 whereby High Court dismissed petition filed by appellants, seeking quashing of FIR No. 771 of 2020 registered at Police Station Gachibowli, Cyberabad and Criminal Case No. 3613 of 2021 registered on file of XII Addl. Metropolitan Magistrate, Kukatpally, Ranga Reddy District pursuant to charge-sheet filed as a sequel to the investigation of the FIR.
Findings of Court:
Cost of Rs. 10,00,000/- is imposed on complainant i.e., respondent No. 2 for misusing process of criminal law and entangling appellants, who are wife and daughter respectively of a Retd. Army Major General, in a totally false and concocted criminal case.
Result : Appeal allowed.
JUDGMENT :
Mehta, J.
1. Heard.
2. Leave granted.
3. The appellants herein have approached this Court by way of the instant appeal, under Article 136 of the Constitution of India, for assailing the final order dated 28th April, 2023 passed by the High Court of Telangana at Hyderabad1[Hereinafter, referred to as “High Court”.] in Criminal Petition No. 7869 of 2021 whereby the High Court dismissed the petition filed by the appellants, seeking quashing of the FIR No. 771 of 2020 registered at Police Station Gachibowli, Cyberabad and the Criminal Case No. 3613 of 2021 registered on the file of XII Addl. Metropolitan Magistrate, Kukatpally, Ranga Reddy District pursuant to the chargesheet filed as a sequel to the investigation of the aforesaid FIR. The High Court decided the petition filed by the appellants in the following manner:
“This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short 'Cr.P.C.') by the petitioners/accused Nos.1 and 2 to quash the proceedings against them in C.C.No.3613 of 2021 on the file of the learned XII Additional Metropolitan Magistrate, Kukatpally. The offences alleged against the petitioners are under Sections 406 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code (for short 'IPC').
2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners as well as learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondent State. Perused the record.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that an Advocate would represent the petitioners/accused Nos. 1 and 2.
4. In the event of the petitioners/accused Nos.1 and 2 filing an application under Section 205 of Cr.P.C., the same shall be considered by the Trial Court on conditions.
5. Accordingly, Criminal Petition is disposed of.
Miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed.”
4. We find the approach of the High Court in casually disposing of the petition filed by the appellants, seeking quashing of the proceedings, without addressing the merits of the matter to be absolutely laconic and perfunctory.
5. We contemplated setting aside the impugned order on this preliminary ground itself and could have remanded the matter back to the High Court for fresh consideration. However, the facts as set out in the FIR and the chargesheet, compel us to interfere in exercise of the extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 136 of the Constitution of India, in order to secure the ends of justice and to ensure that no further harassment and humiliation is caused to the appellants.
6. Succinctly stated, the facts relevant and essential for disposal of the appeal are noted hereinbelow.
6.1. Appellant No.1 is 70 years old, wife of Late Army personnel, Major General PSK Choudhary, and appellant No.2 is her daughter aged about 50 years. Both are residents of New Delhi. Appellant No.1 owns a piece of land admeasuring about 500 square yards, bearing Plot No. 82 in Survey No. 124 and 125, Gachibowli Village, Rajendra Nagar Taluk, Kothaguda Gram Panchayat, Ranga Reddy District, Telangana. 2[Hereinafter referred to as “subject land”.] The said land was gifted to appellant No.1 by her paternal grandmother.
6.2. Around the year 2020, respondent No.23[ Hereinafter referred to as “complainant”.] approached the husband of appellant No.1, i.e., Late Major General PSK Choudhary, showing an interest in purchasing the said plot of land. At that time, the value of the plot was assessed at Rs. 7,00,00,000/- (Rupees Seven Crores only). Unfortunately, Major General Choudhary passed away before any agreement, whether written or oral, could be executed between the parties.
6.3. It is the case of the appellants that they found the management of the property from Delhi to be difficult, therefore, on 5th October, 2020, they orally agreed to sell the subject land to the complainant on the following terms and conditions:
• The total sale consideration was settled at Rs. 5,75,00,000/- provided that the entire consideration amount was paid in a single tranche on or before 7th October, 2020.
• Failure t
