New Delhi, Jul 18 (PTI) The Supreme Court on Friday quashed an FIR against a 70-year-old widow of a retired Army major general and her daughter over a land dispute in Telangana and fined the complainant with Rs 10 lakh for “misusing the justice system”.
A bench of Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta termed the approach of the Telangana High Court in “casually disposing” of the petition of Mala Choudhary and her daughter Puttagunta Revathi Choudhary as “absolutely laconic and perfunctory”.
“The high court acted with absolute pedantic approach, while disposing of the quashing petition filed by the appellants in the cryptic manner as indicated …without even touching the merits of the case,” the court said.
The bench also did not appreciate the manner in which the high court threw out the quashing petition in a “cursory manner”.
“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 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 top court said.
While it initially thought of sending the plea back to the high court for fresh adjudication, but chose to decide it to ensure no “further harassment and humiliation” was caused to the mother and daughter duo.
The 21-page verdict authored by Justice Mehta said, “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.” The duo challenged the Telangana High Court order of April 28, 2023, dismissing their plea for quashing the FIR and subsequent proceedings.
The dispute stemmed from oral agreement to sell a plot of land in Gachibowli, Telangana, owned by appellant Mala to complainant Srujan Sen, the purported agent of a construction firm.
According to the appellants, a conditional offer was made in October 2020, requiring full payment within a fixed timeline.
While the complainant transferred Rs 4.05 crore via banking channels, the appellants claimed no further payment was made, contrary to the oral terms.
Sen got an FIR registered in December 2020 alleging he paid Rs 75 lakh in cash and was threatened by the mother-daughter duo.
Based on the allegations, Telangana Police arrested Mala in January 2021, who was then suffering from a vertebral fracture.
She remained in custody for eight days and her plea for quashing the FIR was rejected by the Telangana High Court without examining the merits.
The top court highlighted inconsistencies between the complainant’s criminal complaint and his subsequent civil suit for specific performance of the contract.
Specific performance is a contractual remedy where a court orders a party to fulfil their obligations under a contract, rather than just awarding monetary damages for breach.
“This is a classic case of misuse of the police machinery by a party wielding influence,” the bench said, observing the FIR lacked essential ingredients of any cognisable offence.
The verdict further noted even on admitted facts, the matter was purely civil in nature and should have been adjudicated through a civil suit.
Highlighting the arrest and custody of the elderly widow, the bench lamented the manner in which the criminal process was “weaponised”.
Besides quashing the FIR, the bench asked Sen to pay Rs 10 lakh to the appellants within 30 days for a false case.
The bench noted that the appellants offered to return Rs 4.05 crore received via banking channels, but the complainant refused and demanded interest.
The top court ordered adequate police protection for the mother and daughter whenever they visit Telangana on prior intimation to the local police authorities.
It came on record that the high court hadn’t dealt with the merits of the plea for quashing the FIR and put the onus on the trial court to examine the merits.
The verdict said the complainant “manipulated and distorted the facts” and used his influence to get the FIR registered against the appellants and added, “We feel that rather than awarding interest to the complainant, it is a fit case wherein the complainant should be penalised with exemplary cost for misusing the process of criminal law in a case which was of purely civil nature.” PTI SJK SJK AMK AMK
This report is auto-generated from PTI news service. ThePrint holds no responsibility for its content.