While upholding an order refusing to quash the proceedings under Sections 420, 344 and 506 of the IPC, the Supreme Court has held that interference is warranted only where the case clearly falls within the recognised parameters for quashing. The Apex Court also made it clear that quashing cannot be premised on a disputed document when its validity is itself a matter in issue.

The appeal filed before the Apex Court was filed against the final order of the Telangana High Court partly allowing the application of the appellant under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 by quashing cognizance under Section 406 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 while maintaining cognizance under Sections 420, 344 and 506 of the IPC.

The Division Bench of Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice Vipul M. Pancholi held, “The appellant’s reliance on the disputed No-Dues Certificate does not advance the case for quashing. Respondent No. 2 alleges that the certificate is fabricated. Its authenticity, evidentiary value and legal effect are matters that can only be adjudicated at trial. Quashing cannot be premised on disputed documents whose validity is itself a matter in issue.”

“It is trite that the power under Section 482 of the CrPC is to be exercised sparingly, with circumspection and only in exceptional situations. Courts must avoid delving into disputed facts at the pre-trial stage. Interference is warranted only where the case clearly falls within the recognised parameters for quashing”, it added.

Senior Advocate Siddharth Dave represented the Appellant while AOR Devina Sehgal represented the Respondent.

Factual Background

The dispute arose from contractual and financial dealings between appellant (second accused) and respondent complainant relating to the construction work undertaken between 2008-2010. A No Dues Certificate was issued by the second respondent. Subsequent disputes arose, culminating in cross allegations. An FIR was lodged by the second respondent against appellant under Sections 420 and 506 of the IPC. After investigation, Charge Sheet was filed against appellant under Sections 420, 406, 344 and 506 and the matter was registered before the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad.

The appellant filed an application under Section 482 of the CrPC before the High Court for quashing of the order of the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, taking cognisance of the offences punishable under Sections 420, 506, 344 and 406 of the IPC and issuing summons to the appellant. The High Court partly allowed the said application and quashed the order of taking cognisance of the offence under Section 406 of the IPC, whereas the High Court declined to quash proceedings under Sections 420, 344 and 506 of the IPC. Aggrieved thereby, the appellant filed the appeal before the Apex Court.

Reasoning

On a perusal of the material on record, including the FIR and the charge sheet, the Bench noted that they contained specific allegations that the appellant induced the second Respondent to undertake substantial construction work on the assurance of payment, which was withheld as per the complaint. Four witnesses corroborated the complaint’s version during the investigation. “These assertions cannot, at this stage, be regarded as inherently improbable, absurd or incapable of attracting criminal liability so as to warrant quashing”, it held.

As per the Bench, the appellant’s reliance on the disputed No-Dues Certificate did not advance the case for quashing. The Bench was of the view that the present case did not fall within any of the narrowly crafted circumstances in which quashing may be justified, as held in State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal (1992).

The Bench also noted that the High Court, after analysing the record, correctly concluded that the ingredients of the offence under Section 406 of the IPC were not made out and, therefore, quashed the cognisance under that provision. “However, the High Court also found that the allegations prima facie disclose the elements of offences under Sections 420, 344 and 506 of the IPC, and thus, rightly refrained from quashing proceedings relating to those offence”, the order read.

The Bench thus stated, “In appellate jurisdiction, the Court does not ordinarily reappreciate evidence or revisit factual findings of the High Court unless the order suffers from manifest illegality, perversity or arbitrariness. The appellant has failed to demonstrate any such infirmity in the impugned decision.” Thus, finding the appeal to be devoid of merit, the Bench dismissed the appeal.

Cause Title: Rocky v. State of Telangana (Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 1384)

Appearance

Appellant: Senior Advocates Siddharth Dave, Sridhar Potaraju, Anirudh Sharma, Varun Kesarwani, AOR Anirudh Sharma

Respondent: AOR Devina Sehgal, Advocates Srikanth Varma Mudunuru, Yatharth Kansal, AOR Sanjay Nair S.

Click here to read/download Order




Justice Sanjay KarolJustice Vipul Pancholi

Tulip Kanth

Assistant Editor

Tulip Kanth is an Assistant Editor at Verdictum having over 5 years of experience in the field of legal journalism and editing. She extensively covers judgments of the Supreme Court, High Courts as well as Tribunals. She has previously worked with a legal publishing website where she oversaw the work of other editors and has also created updates on notifications of different Government Ministries. She holds an English Honours Degree from SGTB Khalsa College, Delhi University and has completed her LLB course with specialisation in Corporate Law from Amity University.