Supreme Court of India.
Supreme Court Imposes ₹10 Lakh Cost on Builder’s Agent for Misusing Criminal Law to Force Sale of Property: New Delhi, India – In a stern rebuke against the misuse of criminal law, the Supreme Court of India on July 18 imposed exemplary costs of ₹10,00,000 (Ten Lakh Rupees) on a complainant for filing a false and baseless First Information Report (FIR) in what was unequivocally deemed a civil dispute. The Court directed that the substantial amount be deposited into the bank account of the appellants, a wife and daughter of a retired army general, who were subjected to arrest and humiliation based on the fabricated charges.
The Bench, comprising Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta, expressed profound shock and concern over the arrest and eight-day police custody of the 70-year-old appellant-lady “for allegations which had no elements of any offence whatsoever what to talk of a cognizable offence.”
“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,” the bench stated emphatically.
READ: Supreme Court Refuses Lalu Yadav’s Plea to Stay Land-for-Job Scam Trial
The apex court also delivered a scathing criticism of the Telangana High Court’s decision, which had dismissed the appellants’ petition seeking the quashing of the FIR under Section 482 Cr.P.C. with a “one-line, unreasoned order.”
Justice Vikram Nath, Supreme Court.
“We find the approach of the High Court in casually disposing of the petition filed by the appellants, seeking quashing of the proceedings, without addressing the merits of the matter to be absolutely laconic and perfunctory,” the court remarked, highlighting a lapse in judicial scrutiny at the High Court level.
The case stemmed from allegations made by the complainant, identified as an agent of an influential builder named M/s Sandhya Constructions and Estates Pvt Ltd. The appellants were accused of accepting ₹4.8 crore for the sale of a plot and farmhouse but subsequently refusing to execute the sale deed, leading to the registration of an FIR under Sections 420 (cheating) and 406 (criminal breach of trust) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).
READ: Supreme Court Warns: Lack of Special NIA Courts Delaying Trials, May Force Bail in Terror Cases
However, the appellants maintained that the property deal was entirely oral and conditional, and since full payment had not been made, the complainant had already initiated a civil suit for specific performance of the contract. They argued that the criminal FIR was a malicious attempt to exert pressure on them despite the ongoing civil dispute.
Upon the High Court’s refusal to quash the FIR, the appellants sought recourse from the Supreme Court. Setting aside the High Court’s decision, the judgment authored by Justice Mehta observed:
“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.”
Justice Sandeep Mehta.
The Court further concluded, “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.”
In a measure to ensure the safety of the appellants, who expressed anticipation of harm in Hyderabad from the complainant, the Supreme Court directed the Superintendent of Police/Commissioner of Police of Hyderabad to provide appropriate security to them.
The appeal, titled MALA CHOUDHARY & ANR. VERSUS THE STATE OF TELANGANA & ANR., was accordingly allowed. The Court reiterated its strong disapproval of the High Court’s approach: “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.”
The petitioners were represented by Ms. Vanshaja Shukla, Adv., Ms. Divya Jyoti Singh, AOR, and Mr. Vineet Nagar, Adv. For the respondents, Ms. Devina Sehgal, AOR, Mr. Yatharth Kansal, Adv., Mr. Tadimalla Bhaskar Gowtham, Adv., Ms. Ekta Swarup, Adv., Mr. Abishek.s, Adv., and Mr. Sandeep Singh, AOR, appeared.
READ: Don’t Burden Yourself with Loans for Foreign LL.M.: CJI BR Gavai to Law Graduates
READ ORDER: MALA CHOUDHARY Vs State of Telangana Supreme Court
