The renouncement of the misuse of criminal law in a case of the real nature of the civil dispute is illustrated by a recent landmark judgment of the Supreme Court of India of July 18, 2025 dated Mala Choudhary & Anr. v. State of Telangana & Anr. An FIR and all further proceedings were quashed by the Court but at a heavy cost to the complainant of having filed a false and cooked up criminal case. The case presented here is a powerful message that criminal proceedings are not a mechanism of harassment and that a means of completing a civil demand.
The origin of the Conflict: a Failed Property deal Gone Bad
The dispute revolved around a claim of property of a 500 square yards of a land in the village of Gachibowli in district of Ranga Reddy in the State of Telangana owned by Appellant No. 1, Mala Choudhary, who is a 70 years old widow of a retired Major General in the Army. The concerned matter includes her daughter Puttagunta Revathi Choudary, also Appellant No. 2, aged approximately 50. Respondent No. 2, who was described as the complainant and an agent of M/s Sandhya Constructions and Estates Pvt. Ltd., came in 2020, expressing interest to purchase the land to the family of the appellants.
On October 5, 2020, an oral agreement was achieved on the sale of the land. The price of first sale was 5,75,00,000 (as per one tranche payment till October 7, 2020). The terms also increased the cost in case of late payments: up to 6,50,00,000 by November 7, 2020 and up to 7,50,00,000 in case payment was not received by November 7, 2020. By November 16, 2020, the complainant transferred 4, 05, 00, 000 rupees in the bank account of appellants using different banking documents. There was however a big gap of an extra cash payment of 75,00, 000 as claimed by the complainant as an upfront payment but denied by the appellants.
Appellants argued that the complainant had not used to the terms of payment and instead started guaranteeing them to proceed with registering the sale deed.The complainant subsequently lodged his complaint on December 11, 2020, and the FIR No. 771 of 2020 came to be registered the same day with Gachibowli Police Station, Cyberabad on December 14, 2020. In the FIR, Section 406 (criminal breach of trust) and 420 (cheating) of Indian Penal Code was mentioned.
A strikingly unsynchronous Abuse of Criminal Machinery: Misuse: There were Abuse: Abuse of Criminal Machinery: There were Strikingly Different Allegations
The Supreme Court has scrupulously pointed out the gross disparities between the plea recorded in the FIR and those contained in later civil suit seeking specific performance of contract against the complainant (Original Suit No. 95 of 2021). Although the FIR contributed to a larger drama to the dispute of the verbal agreement by stating that the agreement was made to include a farm house in Delhi along with plot of 500 sq. yard, which was owned by another party, with a total consideration of 5,00,00,000, the civil suit petition concentrated only on 500 sq, yard plot in Telangana with a mentioned consideration of 1,15,000 per square yard equaling to 575,00,000. The civil case did not refer to the other properties and the supposed power of the complainant over the owner of the neighboring plot.
The Court categorically held that, it is a simple and clear case of non-execution of a registered sale-deed on so called oral pledge of sale that has been raised umbrella of criminal case on the misappropriation of criminal institution. Such abuse and twisting of facts along with the influence of the complainant resulted in filing of a “false and frivolous FIR”.
Unlawful arrest and Nonphysical Prerequisites According to the rule, unlawful arrest and nonphysical requirements are subject to unlawful arrest and judicial oversights. The rule states that arbitrary arrest and judicial oversights must be arbitrary and judicial oversights that are nonphysical.
To further and intensify the seriousness of the situation, Appellant No. 1, albeit by virtue of her age and health conditions (a vertebral fracture) was served a notice under Section 41A of the code of criminal procedure, after which she was arrested. Eight days, between January 13 and January 19, 2021, she was detained before getting a regular bail. The Court observed how even local police joined and provided support to the Telangana police and such police even raided the house of the accused appellants at New Delhi to harass appellant No.2.
The court also harshly criticized the manner in which the High court of Telangana dealt with the petition of the appellants under Section 482, CrPC, requesting the nullification of the FIR. The Supreme Court thought the manner used by High Court was “completely laconic and perfunctory” simply “shaking off the petition without entering into the merits of the matter” and in a “perfunctory manner”. This lack of dealing with the material issues flaunted before the court incited the Supreme Court to be involved in the hearing under its extraordinary jurisdiction.
Roaring Ruling by Supreme Court
On the basis of its powers under Article 136 of the Constitution of India, the Supreme Court directed the High Court FIR No. 771 of 2020 and all consequents of the same order as a gross abuse of the process of law. The Court pointed out that it was wrong to even register a criminal case on any of the alleged circumstances that occurred as per the admission made in the said case and that a complainant ought to have approached a civil remedy.
One important thing in the judgment is that, the appellants offered to repay the 4050 lakhs of rupees, which had been paid by banking transaction. The complainant however rejected this offer on the basis that he wanted to be charged an interest which the Court thought was unnecessary considering the unfounded malicious prosecution.
It was held, therefore, that the Supreme Court awarded a fine of 10,00,000 to the complainant on the account of to abuse the criminal justice system by wrongfully indicting the appellants. This is to be deposited to the account of the appellants within a period of 30 days. Moreover, the Court having considered the fear of the appellants that they will be harmed, has ordered the superintendent of police in Hyderabad/Commissioner of police in Telangana to ensure proper security be given to the appellants whenever they visit for the management of their property after an advance notice.
This ruling can be utilized as a strong message toward weaponization of criminal law in civil conflict and the idea that the criminal prosecution should be solely related to the actual criminal motivation rather than it deemed as a tool of harassment and/or bargaining and winning the civil case.
