Supreme Court Quashes FIR as Gross Abuse of Process, Imposes Rs.10 Lakh Cost and Grants Protection Directions

A bench of Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta heard an appeal under Article 136 of the Constitution challenging the Telangana High Court’s dismissal of a Section 482 CrPC petition seeking quashing of FIR No. 771 of 2020 (Gachibowli, Cyberabad) and consequent trial proceedings under Sections 406 and 420 IPC. The appellants, a 70‑year‑old widow and her daughter, contested criminal proceedings arising from an alleged oral agreement for sale of a 500 sq. yd. plot in Gachibowli and related transactions.

The Court allowed the appeal, set aside the High Court order dated 28 April 2023 and quashed the FIR and all consequential proceedings, finding that the criminal process had been misused to pursue a dispute of purely civil character. The Court recorded that the High Court had dealt with the quashing petition in an "absolutely laconic and perfunctory" manner and held that the facts established on record showed "a classic case ... misusing the process of police investigation so as to entangle the accused appellants ... in a totally false and frivolous prosecution." The Court, in its reasoning, observed: "Exercising the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 136 of the Constitution of India, we hereby quash and set aside the impugned order dated 28th April, 2023 passed by the High Court and as a consequence, the FIR No. 771 of 2020 dated 14th December 2020, and all proceedings sought to be taken in furtherance thereof are declared to be gross abuse of the process of law and are hereby quashed and set aside." The bench further imposed exemplary costs and issued a protection direction for the appellants when they visit Telangana to manage their properties.

Background

The dispute arose from an alleged oral agreement in October 2020 for sale of a plot at Gachibowli and an asserted promise to facilitate purchase of an adjoining plot. The complainant alleged an agreement for Rs. 5,00,00,000, claimed to have paid Rs. 75,00,000 in cash and had transferred Rs. 4,05,00,000 by banking instruments to the appellants’ account. The appellants denied the cash payment and contended the transaction concerned only the Gachibowli plot; they said valuation and pleaded terms differed and that the complainant, an agent of an influential builder, used clout to procure criminal action. The appellants alleged harassment, arrest and eight days’ custody of the 70‑year‑old mother who suffered medical issues; they had offered during these proceedings to refund the Rs. 4.05 crore received through banking transactions, conditional on withdrawal of the civil suit.

The complainant later filed a civil suit for specific performance in Telangana; the High Court dismissed the quashing petition by a cryptic order without adjudication on merits. The Supreme Court reviewed the FIR, chargesheet and pleadings in the civil suit, found material discrepancies between the FIR and the plaint and concluded that the FIR had been used to cloak a civil dispute as a criminal offence. The bench relied on settled principles that criminal machinery should not be weaponised to settle civil disputes and followed relevant precedents before exercising extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 136 to prevent abuse of process. The Court directed that the offer and refusal to accept the refund be recorded in the civil proceedings, granted liberty to seek police protection, and ordered that the appellants receive Rs. 10,00,000 as costs from the complainant, to be paid into the appellants’ account within 30 days.

Case Details: Case No.: 2025 INSC 870 (Criminal Appeal arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 10748 of 2023) Case Title: Mala Choudhary & Anr. v. State of Telangana & Anr. Appearances: For the Petitioner(s): Ms. Vanshaja Shukla (Advocate) For the Respondent(s): Counsel for Respondent No.2 (named in judgment as E‑converso), Standing Counsel for the State of Telangana