Misused Process Of Criminal Law In Case Which Was Of Purely Civil Nature: Supreme Court Imposes ₹10L Cost On Complainant
The Supreme Court said that the High Court acted with absolute pedantic approach, while disposing of the quashing Petition in the cryptic manner, without even touching the merits of the case.
Justice Vikram Nath, Justice Sandeep Mehta, Supreme Court
The Supreme Court has imposed a cost of Rs. 10,00,000/- on the Complainant for misusing the process of criminal law in a case which was of purely civil nature.
A Criminal Appeal was filed against the final Order of the Telangana High Court, which dismissed a Petition seeking quashing of an FIR.
The two-Judge Bench comprising Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Sandeep Mehta remarked, “We feel that rather than awarding interest to the complainant, it is a fit case wherein the complainant should be penalized with exemplary cost for misusing the process of criminal law in a case which was of purely civil nature.”
The Bench said that the High Court acted with absolute pedantic approach, while disposing of the quashing Petition filed by the Appellants in the cryptic manner, without even touching the merits of the case.
Advocate Vanshaja Shukla represented the Appellants while AOR Devina Sehgal represented the Respondents.
Brief Facts
The High Court had dismissed a Petition filed by the Appellants, seeking quashing of the FIR and the criminal case against them. The Appellants were 70-year-old wife of late Army personnel (Major General) and her daughter aged about 50 years. Both were residents of New Delhi. The wife owned a piece of land in Telangana which was gifted to her by her paternal grandmother. Around the year 2020, the Respondent/Complainant approached the Appellant’s husband, showing an interest in purchasing the said land. At that time, the value of the plot was assessed at Rs. 7 crores. Unfortunately, the Appellant’s husband passed away before any agreement, whether written or oral, could be executed between the parties.
The Appellants found the management of the property from Delhi to be difficult, and therefore, they orally agreed to sell the land to the Complainant on some terms and conditions. Acting in furtherance of the oral agreement, the Complainant transferred a sum of Rs. 4,05,00,000/- to the bank account of the Appellants by different instruments/modes, i.e., cheques and/or RTGS up till November 16, 2020. As per the Appellants, no further amount was paid to them, whereas, the Complainant claimed to have paid Rs. 75,00,000/- in cash to the Appellants at the time of execution of oral agreement to sell. Allegedly, in spite of failing to adhere to the terms and conditions of the oral agreement to sell, the Complainant who happens to be an agent of an influential builder/property dealer, started pressurizing the Appellants to get the sale deed registered in the company’s favour.
It was further alleged that he transmitted WhatsApp messages, calling off the deal. However, when the transaction could not be materialized, he lodged a Complaint against the Appellants based on which an FIR was registered. Consequently, the Appellant-wife was arrested and was kept in custody for eight days. She was granted bail by the competent Court on January 19, 2021 but she actually was released from prison on January 21. Allegedly, the Telangana police barged into the house of the Appellants in order to harass and humiliate them. Being aggrieved, they preferred a Petition before the High Court, seeking quashing of the FIR and all proceedings consequent thereto. As their Petition was dismissed, they approached the Apex Court.
Reasoning
The Supreme Court in view of the above facts, observed, “The approach of the High Court in throwing out the quashing petition in such a cursory manner cannot be appreciated. Hence, we are of the opinion that the appeal merits acceptance and deserves to be allowed.”
The Court noted that the fair offer made by the Appellants during the course of hearing of the Appeal to refund the amount received through banking transactions and the blunt refusal of the Complainant to the said proposal shall be taken on record in the proceedings of the civil suit.
“… During the course of hearing of the appeal, Ms. Shukla, learned counsel for the appellants had requested that police protection should be provided to the appellants whenever they go to Hyderabad for the management of their properties because they apprehend harm at the hands of the complainant. In view of the foregoing discussion, we are of the firm opinion that the appellants deserve such relief, and accordingly, it is hereby directed that, as and when the appellants proceed to Hyderabad/Telangana in connection with the management of their property/properties, they shall send a prior intimation by e-mail to the Superintendent of Police/Commissioner of Police, who shall ensure that appropriate security is provided to them”, it added.
The Court further directed that a cost of Rs. 10,00,000/- is imposed on the Complainant for misusing the process of criminal law and entangling the Appellants, who are the wife and daughter respectively of a Retd. Army Major General, in a totally false and concocted criminal case.
“The cost shall be transferred to the account of the appellants, the details of which may be provided in the Registry within a period of 30 days from today”, it also ordered.
Accordingly, the Apex Court allowed the Appeal and quashed the case against the Appellants.
Cause Title- Mala Choudhary & Anr. v. State of Telangana & Anr. (Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 870)
Appearance:
Appellants: AOR Divya Jyoti Singh, Advocates Vanshaja Shukla, and Vineet Nagar.
Respondents: AORs Devina Sehgal, Sandeep Singh, Advocates Yatharth Kansal, Tadimalla Bhaskar Gowtham, Ekta Swarup, and Abishek. S.
