Rocky vs State Of Telangana

2025 INSC 1384 NON-REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

(CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION)

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. _____ OF 2025

(@ SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CRIMINAL) NO. 11151 OF 2025)

ROCKY … APPELLANT

VERSUS

STATE OF TELANGANA & ANR. … RESPONDENTS

JUDGMENT

VIPUL M. PANCHOLI, J.

1. Leave granted.

2. This appeal challenges the final order dated 19.02.2025 passed

by the High Court of Telangana at Hyderabad in Criminal

Petition No. 1022 of 2019, whereby the High Court partly

allowed the application of the appellant under Section 482 of

Signature Not Verified the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred as Digitally signed by KANCHAN CHOUHAN

“the CrPC”) by quashing cognizance under Section 406 of the Date: 2025.12.05 14:43:39 IST Reason:

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred as “the IPC”),

_____________________________________________________________________________________________ SLP (Crl.) No. 11151 of 2025 Page 1 of 16 while maintaining cognizance under Sections 420, 344 and 506

of the IPC.

3. The dispute arises from contractual and financial dealings

between appellant (accused no. 2) and respondent no. 2

(complainant) relating to construction work undertaken

between 2008-2010. A No Dues Certificate dated 10.06.2010

was issued by respondent no. 2 and acknowledged on

12.06.2010. Subsequent disputes arose, culminating in cross-

allegations.

4. FIR No. 240 of 2015 was lodged by respondent no. 2 against

appellant under Sections 420 and 506 of the IPC. After

investigation, Charge Sheet No. 07 of 2016 was filed against

appellant under Sections 420, 406, 344 and 506 of the IPC and

the matter was registered as C.C. No. 1374 of 2016 before the

learned III Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate,

Hyderabad.

5. The appellant filed an application under Section 482 of the CrPC

before the High Court for quashing of the order dated

19.10.2016 passed by the learned Additional Chief Metropolitan

Magistrate, taking cognizance of the offences punishable under

_____________________________________________________________________________________________ SLP (Crl.) No. 11151 of 2025 Page 2 of 16 Sections 420, 506, 344 and 406 of the IPC and issuing

summons to the appellant in C.C. No. 1374 of 2016. The High

Court partly allowed the said application and quashed the order

of taking cognizance of the offence under Section 406 of the IPC

whereas, the High Court declined to quash proceedings under

Sections 420, 344 and 506 of the IPC.

6. Aggrieved by the aforesaid order, the appellant has filed the

present appeal.

7. Learned Senior Counsel for the appellant contended that the

dispute between the parties is entirely civil in nature and has

been improperly given a criminal color. It is submitted that the

No-Dues Certificate dated 10.06.2010, duly acknowledged by

respondent no. 2, unequivocally records that no payments were

outstanding, thereby exposing the falsity of the allegations

subsequently raised. According to the appellant, the criminal

proceedings have been initiated solely to exert pressure and

extract additional amounts under the guise of criminal law.

8. It is further urged that the FIR is a motivated counterblast to

the injunction order secured by the appellant in O.S. No. 98 of

2015. The filing of the FIR within three days of the said order

_____________________________________________________________________________________________ SLP (Crl.) No. 11151 of 2025 Page 3 of 16 demonstrates, according to learned senior counsel, the mala

fide intent of respondent no. 2 to harass and intimidate the

appellant. The FIR, lodged after an unexplained delay of more

than five years from the incident, is stated to suffer from

inherent improbabilities and lacks credibility. Such an

inordinate and unexplained delay, it is submitted, vitiates the

prosecution and renders the allegations unreliable. Moreover,

neither the FIR nor the charge sheet attributes any specific overt

act to the appellant in relation to the incident dated 09.02.2015

and there are no allegations of initial fraudulent intention or

inducement. The entire dispute, it is submitted, pertains to

non-payment of contractual dues and falls squarely within the

realm of civil law.

9. It is also submitted that the outstanding amount of Rs.

43,29,833/- pertains to contractual performance and that

criminal proceedings cannot be invoked for the enforcement of

civil liabilities. Reliance is placed on M/s Shikhar Chemicals

v. State of Uttar Pradesh, 2025 SCC OnLine 1643, and

Mitesh Kumar J. Sha v. State of Karnataka, (2022) 14 SCC

572, wherein this Court cautioned against the misuse of

_____________________________________________________________________________________________ SLP (Crl.) No. 11151 of 2025 Page 4 of 16 criminal law to settle civil or commercial disputes and held that

such attempts constitute an abuse of process.

10. Additionally, it is argued that the order of the learned Magistrate

taking cognizance under Sections 420, 406, 344 and 506 of the

IPC is mechanical and vitiated by non-application of mind. The

order dated 19.10.2016, according to learned senior counsel,

does not reflect any examination of the statutory ingredients of

the offences, nor does it record satisfaction of the existence of a

prima facie case. Reliance is placed on Anil Kumar v. M.K.

Aiyappa, (2013) 10 SCC 705, and Shaurabh Kumar

Tripathi v. Vidhi Rawal, 2025 SCC OnLine 1158, to submit

that the absence of judicial application of mind renders the

entire cognizance order unsustainable.

11. It is further contended that the High Court retains the power to

quash proceedings even after the filing of a charge sheet.

Reference is made to Anand Kumar Mohatta v. State (NCT of

Delhi), (2019) 11 SCC 706, and Abhishek v. State of Madhya

Pradesh, 2023 SCC OnLine SC 1083, which clarify that the

filing of a charge sheet does not extinguish the jurisdiction of

the High Court under Section 482 of the CrPC.

_____________________________________________________________________________________________ SLP (Crl.) No. 11151 of 2025 Page 5 of 16

12. In light of the fact that the charge sheet was filed in 2016 and

that the proceedings have remained pending for nearly a decade

without any substantive progress, it is submitted that the

continuation of the criminal case would amount to an abuse of

the criminal justice system. Therefore, the appellant prayed that

FIR No. 240 of 2015 and all consequential proceedings be

quashed.

13. Per contra, learned counsel for the State (respondent no. 1)

submitted that although this Court issued notice in the SLP, no

stay was granted. Despite this, learned counsel for the appellant

incorrectly represented before the Trial Court that stay had

been granted, leading to unwarranted adjournments. This

conduct, it is submitted, reflects lack of bona fides and an

attempt to stall proceedings.

14. Learned Amicus Curiae appointed for respondent no. 2

submitted that three bills amounting to approximately Rs. 1.17

crores were raised for the construction work undertaken by

respondent no. 2, whereas the appellant’s company made

payments totaling only about Rs. 52 lakhs. It is contended that

_____________________________________________________________________________________________ SLP (Crl.) No. 11151 of 2025 Page 6 of 16 a substantial balance remains unpaid, in addition to further

construction work completed at the request of the appellant.

15. It is argued that the No-Dues Certificate relied upon by the

appellant is fabricated and does not reflect the true financial

position between the parties. The respondent no. 2 has

consistently disputed its authenticity, and therefore, the

document cannot form the basis for quashing criminal

proceedings at the threshold.

16. It is further submitted that the materials collected during

investigation, including the statements of four witnesses, fully

support the respondent no. 2’s allegations and disclose a prima

facie case against the appellant. It is emphasised that the

veracity of these statements and the defense put forth by the

appellant are matters to be examined during trial and this Court

may not interfere at the pre-trial stage.

17. With respect to the contention of the appellant that the dispute

is purely civil, it is submitted that the mere absence of civil

recovery proceedings by respondent no. 2 does not, by itself,

establish mala fides or demonstrate that the criminal complaint

was lodged to exert undue pressure. It is urged that the nature

_____________________________________________________________________________________________ SLP (Crl.) No. 11151 of 2025 Page 7 of 16 of the allegations and not the choice of civil remedies, must

guide the Court in assessing the maintainability of proceedings.

18. Reliance is placed on State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, 1992

Supp (1) SCC 335, to urge that the power to quash criminal

proceedings under Section 482 of the CrPC is to be exercised

sparingly and in exceptional circumstances. Courts must

refrain from entering into the truthfulness or otherwise of the

allegations at this stage and may interfere only where the case

falls within the narrowly recognised categories warranting

quashing.

19. Further reliance is placed on Pradeep Kumar Kesarwani v.

State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr., 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1947,

to contend that the appellant has not produced unimpeachable

or incontrovertible material capable of dislodging the case of the

prosecution. In particular, when the No-Dues Certificate is

seriously contested and uncorroborated, it cannot be relied

upon to nullify the proceedings.

20. Reliance is also placed on Muskan v. Ishaan Khan (Sataniya)

and Others, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 2355, wherein this Court

has held that with regard to the power to quash criminal

_____________________________________________________________________________________________ SLP (Crl.) No. 11151 of 2025 Page 8 of 16 proceedings under Section 482 of the CrPC, it is settled that at

the stage of quashing, the court is not required to conduct a

“mini trial”. Thus, the jurisdiction under Section 482 of the

CrPC with respect to quashing is somewhat limited as the court

has to only consider whether any sufficient material is available

to proceed against the accused or not. If sufficient material is

available, the power under Section 482 of the CrPC should not

be exercised.

21. In view of the above, it is submitted that the present appeal

lacks merit and that the High Court committed no error in

refusing to quash the criminal proceedings. It is accordingly

urged that the present appeal be dismissed.

22. We have carefully considered the rival submissions and perused

the material placed on record.

23. The primary issue in this appeal is whether the High Court was

justified in declining to quash the proceedings for offences

under Sections 420, 344 and 506 of the IPC, while exercising

its inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 of the CrPC.

24. The appellant’s core contention, that the dispute is purely civil

in nature, is untenable at this stage. Although courts must

_____________________________________________________________________________________________ SLP (Crl.) No. 11151 of 2025 Page 9 of 16 guard against giving criminal colour to civil disputes, it is

equally well settled that the existence of civil remedies does not

preclude criminal prosecution where the allegations disclose the

essential ingredients of an offence. Civil and criminal

proceedings may validly coexist if the factual matrix supports

both.

25. In the present case, the material on record, including the FIR

and the charge sheet, contains specific allegations that the

appellant induced Respondent No. 2 to undertake substantial

construction work on the assurance of payment, which was

withheld as per the complaint. Four witnesses have

corroborated the complaint’s version during the investigation.

These assertions cannot, at this stage, be regarded as

inherently improbable, absurd or incapable of attracting

criminal liability so as to warrant quashing.

26. The appellant’s reliance on the disputed No-Dues Certificate

does not advance the case for quashing. Respondent No. 2

alleges that the certificate is fabricated. Its authenticity,

evidentiary value and legal effect are matters that can only be

_____________________________________________________________________________________________ SLP (Crl.) No. 11151 of 2025 Page 10 of 16 adjudicated at trial. Quashing cannot be premised on disputed

documents whose validity is itself a matter in issue.

27. In the case of Pradeep Kumar Kesarwani (supra), this Court

outlined a structured four-step test to assess claims for

quashing under Section 482 of the CrPC. The material relied on

by the accused must be (i) of sterling and impeccable quality,

(ii) sufficient to completely negate the allegations,

(iii) uncontested or incapable of legitimate contest by the

prosecution, and (iv) such that continuing the trial would

amount to abuse of process. Unless all four tests are satisfied,

quashing is unwarranted. The relevant paragraph of the said

decision reads as under: -

“20. The following steps should ordinarily determine the veracity of a prayer for quashing, raised by an accused by invoking the power vested in the High Court under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C.:-

(i) Step one, whether the material relied upon by the accused is sound, reasonable, and indubitable, i.e., the materials is of sterling and impeccable quality?

(ii) Step two, whether the material relied upon by the accused, would rule out the assertions contained in the charges levelled against the accused, i.e., the material is sufficient to reject and overrule the factual assertions contained in the complaint, i.e., the material is such, as would persuade a reasonable

_____________________________________________________________________________________________ SLP (Crl.) No. 11151 of 2025 Page 11 of 16 person to dismiss and condemn the factual basis of the accusations as false.

(iii) Step three, whether the material relied upon by the accused, has not been refuted by the prosecution/complainant; and/or the material is such, that it cannot be justifiably refuted by the prosecution/complainant?

(iv) Step four, whether proceeding with the trial would result in an abuse of process of the court, and would not serve the ends of justice?

If the answer to all the steps is in the affirmative, judicial conscience of the High Court should persuade it to quash such criminal-proceedings, in exercise of power vested in it under Section 482 of the Cr. P.C. Such exercise of power, besides doing justice to the accused, would save precious court time, which would otherwise be wasted in holding such a trial (as well as, proceedings arising therefrom) specially when, it is clear that the same would not conclude in the conviction of the accused. [(See: Rajiv Thapar v. Madan Lal Kapoor (Criminal Appeal No. 174 of 2013)]”

28. However in the present case, the material relied on by the

appellant fails to satisfy the above-mentioned benchmarks.

29. Similarly, the categories enumerated in the case of Bhajan Lal

(supra) provide illustrative circumstances in which quashing

may be justified. The relevant paragraphs read as under:

“102. In the backdrop of the interpretation of the various relevant provisions of the Code under Chapter XIV and of the principles of law enunciated by this Court in a series of decisions relating to the exercise of the extraordinary power under Article 226 or the

_____________________________________________________________________________________________ SLP (Crl.) No. 11151 of 2025 Page 12 of 16 inherent powers under Section 482 of the Code which we have extracted and reproduced above, we have given the following categories of cases by way of illustration wherein such power could be exercised either to prevent abuse of the process of any court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice, though it may not be possible to lay down any precise, clearly defined and sufficiently channelised and inflexible guidelines or rigid formulae and to give an exhaustive list of myriad kinds of cases wherein such power should be exercised.

(1) Where the allegations made in the first information report or the complaint, even if they are taken at their face value and accepted in their entirety do not prima facie constitute any offence or make out a case against the accused.

(2) Where the allegations in the first information report and other materials, if any, accompanying the FIR do not disclose a cognizable offence, justifying an investigation by police officers under Section 156(1) of the Code except under an order of a Magistrate within the purview of Section 155(2) of the Code. (3) Where the uncontroverted allegations made in the FIR or complaint and the evidence collected in support of the same do not disclose the commission of any offence and make out a case against the accused. (4) Where, the allegations in the FIR do not constitute a cognizable offence but constitute only a non-

cognizable offence, no investigation is permitted by a police officer without an order of a Magistrate as contemplated under Section 155(2) of the Code. (5) Where the allegations made in the FIR or complaint are so absurd and inherently improbable on the basis of which no prudent person can ever reach a just conclusion that there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused.

_____________________________________________________________________________________________ SLP (Crl.) No. 11151 of 2025 Page 13 of 16 (6) Where there is an express legal bar engrafted in any of the provisions of the Code or the concerned Act (under which a criminal proceeding is instituted) to the institution and continuance of the proceedings and/or where there is a specific provision in the Code or the concerned Act, providing efficacious redress for the grievance of the aggrieved party.

(7) Where a criminal proceeding is manifestly attended with mala fide and/or where the proceeding is maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the accused and with a view to spite him due to private and personal grudge.

103. We also give a note of caution to the effect that the power of quashing a criminal proceeding should be exercised very sparingly and with circumspection and that too in the rarest of rare cases; that the court will not be justified in embarking upon an enquiry as to the reliability or genuineness or otherwise of the allegations made in the FIR or the complaint and that the extraordinary or inherent powers do not confer an arbitrary jurisdiction on the court to act according to its whim or caprice.”

30. On perusal of the above-mentioned judgments, it is clear that

the present case does not fall within any of the narrowly crafted

circumstances in which quashing may be justified, as held in

Bhajan Lal (supra). The allegations are neither absurd nor

patently improbable, nor is there any express legal bar to

prosecution. At this stage, the Court cannot embark upon an

evaluation of the reliability or genuineness of the allegations or

the defence documents.

_____________________________________________________________________________________________ SLP (Crl.) No. 11151 of 2025 Page 14 of 16

31. It is pertinent to note that the High Court, after analysing the

record, correctly concluded that the ingredients of the offence

under Section 406 of the IPC were not made out and, therefore,

quashed the cognizance under that provision. However, the

High Court also found that the allegations prima facie disclose

the elements of offences under Sections 420, 344 and 506 of the

IPC, and thus, rightly refrained from quashing proceedings

relating to those offences.

32. It is trite that the power under Section 482 of the CrPC is to be

exercised sparingly, with circumspection and only in

exceptional situations. Courts must avoid delving into disputed

facts at the pre-trial stage. Interference is warranted only where

the case clearly falls within the recognised parameters for

quashing.

33. In appellate jurisdiction, this Court does not ordinarily

reappreciate evidence or revisit factual findings of the High

Court unless the order suffers from manifest illegality,

perversity or arbitrariness. The appellant has failed to

demonstrate any such infirmity in the impugned decision.

_____________________________________________________________________________________________ SLP (Crl.) No. 11151 of 2025 Page 15 of 16

34. Having regard to the overall facts, materials and allegations, we

are satisfied that the High Court committed no error in refusing

to quash the proceedings for offences under Sections 420, 344

and 506 of the IPC.

35. For the said reasons, the present appeal is dismissed as devoid

of any merit.

36. Pending applications, if any, shall stand disposed of.

…………………………….……….J. [SANJAY KAROL]

…………………………….……….J. [VIPUL M. PANCHOLI]

NEW DELHI DECEMBER 04, 2025

_____________________________________________________________________________________________ SLP (Crl.) No. 11151 of 2025 Page 16 of 16