Paragraph numbers below are the court’s original numbering, recovered from the source text.
10. 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. yard for a consideration of Rs. 5,00,00,000/- (Rupees Five Crores only), but in addition thereto, it was alleged that 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 No. 2 on her intervention. 1218
11. 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.5,00,00,000/- (Rupees Five Crores only) whereas in a civil suit which was filed much after the lodging of the FIR, the complainant 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. 5,75,00,000/-. Thus, there is a drastic variance in the complainant’s allegations qua the oral agreement as narrated in the FIR vis-a-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 appellant No.1, the neighbouring plot owner i.e., Mr. 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.
12. Thus, clearly the complainant has manipulated and distorted the facts and has 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-called oral agreement to sell has been given the cloak of a criminal case by misusing the criminal machinery. Not only this, appellant No. 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 the custody for almost eight days.
13. We are of the 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.
14. 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 cognizable offence. The fact that 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 No. 1 is arrested and humiliated by keeping her in custody for eight days. During the course of the hearing of the appeal, the appellants fairly [2025] 7 S.C.R. Mala Choudhary & Anr. v. State of Telangana & Anr. offered to return the amount of Rs. 4,05,00,000/- transferred to them by the complainant through valid banking transactions but the counsel for the complainant on instructions stated that the complainant is not interested in accepting the same and demanded interest on the amount for settling the dispute.
15. 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.
16. We are also of the firm view that the High Court acted with absolute pedantic approach, while disposing of the quashing petition filed by the appellants in the cryptic manner as indicated above, without even touching the merits of the case.
17. 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.
18. 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.
19. The fair offer made by the appellants during the course of hearing of this 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.
20. 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 1220 to the Superintendent of Police/Commissioner of Police, who shall ensure that appropriate security is provided to them.
21. A cost of Rs. 10,00,000/- (Rupees Ten Lakhs only) is imposed on the complainant i.e., respondent No. 2 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.
22. 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.
23. The appeal is allowed in these terms.
24. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of. Result of the case: Appeal allowed. †Headnotes prepared by: Nidhi Jain