Securing Ends Of Justice

 

 

 

IN A criminal appeal – Mala Choudhary & Another v. State of Telangana & Another, decided on July 18, 2025, by Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Sandeep Mehta at the Supreme Court, with quite critical comment that the Telangana High Court has acted with quite absolute pedantic approach while hearing the “quashing petition” filed by the appellants in the cryptic manner without even touching the merits of the case. The Supreme Court has observed further that the approach of the High Court in throwing out the ‘quashing petition’ in such a cursory manner cannot be appreciated. Hence the SC was of the opinion that the appeal merits acceptance and deserves to be allowed. The appellants herein, approached the Supreme Court, by way of this appeal, challenging the final order passed by the High Court of Telangana at Hyderabad, on April 28, 2023, whereby the HC had dismissed the petition filed by the appellants.

 

The Supreme Court has stated that it had contemplated to set aside the impugned order on the preliminary ground itself and could have remanded the matter back to the HC for fresh consideration. However, the facts set in the FIR and the chargesheet compelled the Court to interfere in exercise of its 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. The SC has found the approach of the HC in casually disposing of the criminal petition seeking quashing of the proceedings, without addressing the merits of the matter absolutely laconic and perfunctory. Appellant no. 1 is 70 years old, wife of Late Army Personnel, Major General PSK Choudhary and appellant-2 is her 50 years old daughter. Both reside in Delhi. Appellant –mother owns a piece of land admeasuring about 500 Sq. Yards in Ranga Reddy District, Telangana.

 

The said land was gifted to the appellant-mother by her paternal grandmother. Around the year 2020, respondent -2 approached the husband of the appellant -1 showing interest in purchasing the said plot of land. At that time the value of he said plot was assessed at Rs. seven Crores. Unfortunately, the Late Major General passed away before any agreement, whether written or oral, could be executed between the parties. It is the case of the appellants that they found the management of the property from Delhi to be difficult therefore, on October 5, 2020, they orally to the agreed to sell the subject-land to the complainant. Acting in furtherance of the oral agreement, the complainant transferred a sum of Rs Rs. 4.05 Crores to the bank account of the appellants by different instruments/modes, that is , cheques and /or up till November 16, 2020. The appellant’s case is that no further amount was paid to them in terms of the oral agreement whereas the complainant claims to have paid a sum of Rs 75 Lakh in cash to the appellants at the time of execution of the oral agreement to sell.

 

The Complainant has tried to portray in the FIR that not only did the accused appellants agree to transfer plot No. 82 admeasuring 500 Sq. Yards for a consideration of Rs 5 Crore, but in addition thereto, it was alleged that the appellant No.1 claimed that she had good relations with the neighbouring plot-owner Mr. Devraj and would ensure that he also sells his plot to respondent -2 on her intervention. The averments in the impugned FIR are to the effect that the accused appellants orally agreed to sell plot No. 82 and a farm house at Delhi to the complainant for a total consideration of Rs five crores only whereas in a civil suit which was filed much after lodging of the FIR, the appellant has specifically averred that the agreement for sale was made for a consideration of Rs 1,15,000 per square Yard and the total value of the plot was Rs 5.75 Crores/-. Thus, there is a drastic variance in the complainant’s allegations qua the oral agreement as narrated in the FIR vis-à-vis as set out in the plaint.

 

In order to aggravate the allegations, the complainant also alleged in the FIR that the accused –appellants assured the complainant that on the intervention of the Appellant-1, the neighbouring plot-owner, Devraj would also sell his plot to the complainant. However, the averments in the civil suit instituted by the complainant do not bear even a semblance of this aspersion. Thus, clearly, the complainant has manipulated and distorted the facts and used its influence for getting the FIR registered against the appellants. On a bare reading of the FIR, it is clear that a plain and simple dispute involving non-execution of a registered sale deed in terms of so so-called oral agreement to sell has been given the cloak of a criminal case criminal case by misusing the criminal machinery. Not only this, appellant-1, being a 70 years old lady and wife of a retired Army officer was arrested in connection with this false and frivolous FIR and had to remain in custody for almost eight days.

 

The Supreme Court is of firm opinion that even from the admitted allegations set out in the complaint, there was no justification for registering the FIR and rather the complainant should have been instructed to avail the appropriate remedy by approaching the civil Court. In gross disregard to all tenets of law, the impugned FIR came to be registered for allegations which had no elements of any offence whatsoever what to talk of a cognisable offence. The fact, that the appellant No.1 was arrested in this frivolous FIR clearly shows the clout of the company of which the complainant is an agent, on the police agency as not only did the complainant manage to get the FIR registered, but thereafter, also saw to it that appellant -1 is arrested and humiliated, by keeping her in custody for eight days. During hearing, the appellants fairly offered to return the amount Rs 4.05 crores transferred to them by the complainant through valid banking transactions, but the complainant’s counsel also demanded interest on the amount for settling the dispute. But the Court felt that it is fit case for suitably penalizing the complainant by imposing exemplary costs on him, instead of awarding interest to him for misusing the process of criminal law in a case, which is purely civil in nature.

 

The SC granted the prayer of the appellants, to direct the local Police to grant them required security, whenever they have to visit Hyderabad for managing the property. The Supreme Court has imposed costs of Rs ten Lakh on the complainant (Respondent-2) for misusing the process of criminal law and entangling the appellants in false and concocted criminal case. The amount of the costs shall be transferred to the account of the appellants within 30 days.