'False, Frivolous': SC Quashes FIR Against Wife, Daughter Of Late Major General In Land Deal

Last Updated:July 21, 2025, 16:33 IST

The court also imposed Rs 10 lakh as cost on the complainant for misusing the process of criminal law and entangling the appellants in the criminal case.

Appellants here were the wife and the daughter of Late Army personnel, Major General PSK Choudhary. (PTI File)

The Supreme Court has on July 18, 2025 quashed criminal proceedings initiated against the wife and the daughter of a retired Major General in a “totally false and concocted case" at the instance of an influential builder in a dispute related to selling of land in Ranga Reddy district.

The court also imposed Rs 10 lakh as cost on the complainant for misusing the process of criminal law and entangling the appellants in the criminal case, which resulted into eight days custody of 70-year-old Mala Choudhary, a resident of New Delhi.

“We are convinced that this is a classic case of the complainant, who seems to be wielding some clout in the State of Telangana, misusing the process of police investigation so as to entangle the accused appellants who are residents of New Delhi, in a totally false and frivolous prosecution for the offences punishable under Sections 406 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code," a bench of Justices Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta said.

The court allowed the appeal against the Telangana High Court’s order of April 28, 2023, which declined their plea for quashing the 2020 FIR, saying the approach of the High Court in casually disposing of the petition filed by the appellants, without addressing the merits of the matter was “absolutely laconic and perfunctory".

It also directed for providing police protection to the women whenever they would visit Telangana for management of their property.

Appellants here were the wife and the daughter of Late Army personnel, Major General PSK Choudhary. The wife owned a plot measuring 500 sq yard in Ranga Reddy district. In 2020, the complainant approached the Late Army officer for selling the plot for Rs 7 crore.

As he passed away, his wife in October, 2020 agreed to sell to it by an oral agreement, the complainant transferred Rs 4.05 crore in her bank account. The appellants claimed no further amount was paid but the complainant argued Rs 75 lakh were paid in cash to her in Delhi.

Since the deal could not materialise, the complainant, who happened to be an agent of an influential builder/property dealer, i e, M/s Sandhya Constructions and Estates Pvt Ltd lodged an FIR at the Police Station Gachibowli, District Cyberabad on December 14, 2020.

In the FIR, the complainant alleged that the appellants failed to register the plot, besides a farm house at Chhattarpur in Delhi.

Advocate Vanshaja Shukla, appearing for the appellants, vehemently and fervently contended that the substratum of the allegations as levelled in the impugned FIR is absolutely false and fabricated.

She said, the complainant represented an influential builder, which has tremendous clout in Telangana and used its influence to falsely implicate appellants in a criminal case when the facts as set out in the FIR disclosed a dispute which is purely civil in nature.

She further pointed out that the complainant has already availed the remedy under civil law by filing a suit for specific performance before the competent civil court at Telangana.

The counsel said, the pleadings in the suit and the FIR which emanated from the same transaction are in stark contradiction to each other.

While the relief of specific performance sought in the suit is limited to a plot of land measuring 500 sq metres, in total contrast, the complainant, while filing the FIR, has attempted to exaggerate the dispute by covering in the oral agreement another property owned by the appellants, i.e., a farm house at Delhi, as well as an adjoining piece of land owned by another party, she said.

Opposing the plea, the respondents counsel contended that the actions of the appellants were actuated with dishonest intent right from the inception of the dealings. They acted with deceit and induced the complainant into the transaction, without ever intending to keep their word.

Their counsel alleged, in this fraudulent manner, they persuaded the complainant to part with the entire sale consideration and subsequently reneged on their promise to execute the sale deed in favour of the complainant. Thus, they contended that the FIR disclosed the necessary ingredients of the alleged offences, and it was not a fit case warranting interference by this court under Article 136 of the Constitution.

With regard to the offer by the appellants to return the money, the counsel said, if the said amount is paid with interest, then in such situation, the complainant may consider settling the entire dispute.

Having considered the submissions and after going through the FIR and the pleadings of the suit for specific performance filed by the complainant, the bench said, 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, the court noted, 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, the bench said.

“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," the bench opined.

However, the court found, in gross disregard to all tenets of law, the FIR came to be registered 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 penalised with exemplary cost for misusing the process of criminal law in a case which was of purely civil nature," the bench said.

Coming back to the High Court’s approach in the case, the court said, initially, it contemplated setting aside the impugned order and remanding the matter back for fresh consideration.

“However, the facts as set out in the FIR and the chargesheet, compel us to interfere in exercise of the extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 136 of the Constitution, in order to secure the ends of justice and to ensure that no further harassment and humiliation is caused to the appellants," the bench said.

The court found the Single Judge of the High Court, in an absolutely cursory manner and by way of a cryptic order, proceeded to dispose of the petition without even touching the merits of the case.

“We are also of the firm view that the High Court acted with absolute pedantic approach. The approach of the High Court in throwing out the quashing petition in such a cursory manner cannot be appreciated," the bench said.

The court also directed that, as and when the appellants proceed to Hyderabad, Telangana in connection with the management of their properties, they should send a prior intimation by e-mail to the Superintendent of Police or Commissioner of Police, who would ensure that appropriate security is provided to them.

Sanya Talwar

Sanya Talwar, Editor at Lawbeat, has been heading the organisation since its inception. After practising in courts for over four years, she discovered her affinity for legal journalism. She has worked previousl...Read More

Sanya Talwar, Editor at Lawbeat, has been heading the organisation since its inception. After practising in courts for over four years, she discovered her affinity for legal journalism. She has worked previousl...

Read More

Location :

First Published:

News india 'False, Frivolous': SC Quashes FIR Against Wife, Daughter Of Late Major General In Land Deal