Summary and Analysis of Mala Choudhary & Anr. vs. State of Telangana & Anr Criminal Appeal No(s). of 2025 (Arising out of SLP (Cri.) No. 10748 of 2023)

1. Heading of the Judgment

Case Name: Mala Choudhary & Anr. vs. State of Telangana & Anr.
Court: Supreme Court of India
Jurisdiction: Criminal Appellate Jurisdiction
Case No.: Criminal Appeal No(s). of 2025 (Arising out of SLP (Cri.) No. 10748 of 2023)
Judges: Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta, JJ.
Date of Judgment: July 18, 2025

2. Related Laws and Sections

• Article 136 of the Constitution of India: Special leave petition jurisdiction of the Supreme Court.

• Sections 406 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC): Offenses related to criminal breach of trust and cheating.

• Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC): Inherent powers of the High Court to quash criminal proceedings.

• Section 205 of CrPC: Exemption from personal appearance in court.

3. Basic Judgment Details

• Appellants: Mala Choudhary (70-year-old widow of a retired Army Major General) and her daughter.

• Respondents: State of Telangana and a complainant (agent of a builder company).

• Subject Matter: Quashing of FIR No. 771 of 2020 and related criminal proceedings alleging cheating and criminal breach of trust in a property transaction.

• High Court's Order: Dismissed the quashing petition without examining merits.

• Supreme Court's Decision: Allowed the appeal, quashed the FIR, and imposed costs on the complainant for misuse of criminal law.

4. Explanation of the Judgment

Background of the Case

• The appellants owned a 500 sq. yard plot in Telangana, gifted to Mala Choudhary by her grandmother.

• The complainant, representing a builder company, approached the appellants to purchase the land. An oral agreement was made, with the total sale consideration set at Rs. 5.75 crore, payable in tranches.

• The complainant paid Rs. 4.05 crore via banking channels but failed to pay the remaining amount.

• When the appellants refused to execute the sale deed without full payment, the complainant filed an FIR alleging cheating (Sections 406/420 IPC).

Key Allegations and Contradictions

• The FIR exaggerated the dispute by falsely claiming the oral agreement included:
  A Delhi farmhouse (not part of the actual deal).
  A promise to facilitate the purchase of an adjoining plot owned by a third party.

• The civil suit filed by the complainant contradicted the FIR, as it only sought specific performance for the 500 sq. yard plot.

Supreme Court's Observations

1. Abuse of Criminal Process:
   The FIR was a civil dispute disguised as a criminal case. The complainant misused police influence to harass the appellants.
   Appellant No. 1 (a senior citizen) was arrested and jailed for 8 days, causing undue humiliation.

2. High Court's Failure:
   The High Court dismissed the quashing petition without examining merits, which the Supreme Court termed "laconic and perfunctory."

3. Fair Offer by Appellants:
   The appellants offered to refund Rs. 4.05 crore (received via banking channels) if the civil suit was withdrawn. The complainant refused, demanding interest.

4. Judgment Highlights:
   FIR Quashed: The Supreme Court quashed the FIR and all related proceedings, calling it a gross abuse of law.
   Costs Imposed: The complainant was fined Rs. 10 lakh for misusing criminal machinery.
   Police Protection: The appellants were granted security when visiting Telangana to manage their property.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court ruled that the dispute was purely civil (breach of oral agreement) and not criminal. It condemned the complainant's tactics and protected the appellants from further harassment.

Key Takeaways:

• Criminal law cannot be used to settle civil disputes.

• Courts must scrutinize FIRs to prevent misuse.

• Exemplary costs can deter frivolous litigation.