Summary
| Category | Data |
|---|---|
| Court | Supreme Court of India |
| Case Number | Crl.A. No.-005252-005252 – 2025 |
| Diary Number | 31507/2025 |
| Judge Name | HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PRASHANT KUMAR MISHRA |
| Bench |
|
| Precedent Value | Affirmation of existing Supreme Court precedents |
| Overrules / Affirms | Affirms |
| Type of Law | Procedural law under CrPC |
| Questions of Law | Whether the High Court was justified in declining to quash proceedings under Sections 420, 344 and 506 IPC while exercising its inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 CrPC. |
| Ratio Decidendi | The High Court must exercise Section 482 powers sparingly and only in exceptional cases. The appellant’s material failed the four-step Kesarwani test—it was not sterling, fully negating the allegations, uncontested or such that continuation constitutes abuse of process. Disputed documents like the No-Dues Certificate cannot support quashing at threshold. |
| Judgments Relied Upon |
|
| Logic / Jurisprudence / Authorities Relied Upon by the Court |
|
| Facts as Summarised by the Court | The dispute arose from 2008–2010 construction contracts and a No-Dues Certificate dated 10.06.2010. An FIR in 2015 under Sections 420, 506 IPC led to a 2016 charge sheet adding Sections 406 and 344. The High Court quashed only Section 406 cognizance and maintained charges under Sections 420, 344 and 506. |
Practical Impact
| Category | Impact |
|---|---|
| Binding On | All subordinate courts |
| Persuasive For | High Courts and trial courts in quashing petitions under Section 482 CrPC |
| Follows |
|
What’s New / What Lawyers Should Note
- Confirms that the four-step Kesarwani test must be satisfied fully before quashing under Section 482 CrPC.
- Disputed documents (e.g., No-Dues Certificates) cannot form the basis for quashing at the pre-trial stage.
- Reinforces that Section 482 power is extraordinary, to be exercised sparingly and only when material is sterling and uncontested.
- Emphasises no “mini-trial” at quashing; reliability of allegations must await trial.
- Affirms that existence of civil remedies does not bar criminal prosecution where essential ingredients of offences are prima facie disclosed.
- Illustrates separate assessment of each IPC offence—Section 406 alone was quashed, others upheld.
Summary of Legal Reasoning
- Section 482 CrPC must be exercised sparingly, with circumspection, only in narrowly defined circumstances.
- The four-step test from Pradeep Kumar Kesarwani requires (i) sterling material, (ii) sufficient to negate charges, (iii) uncontested, and (iv) continuation would be abuse of process.
- Illustrative categories in Bhajan Lal show quashing is limited to cases where allegations are absurd, barred by law, or mala fide.
- The No-Dues Certificate is disputed; its authenticity and evidentiary value must be tested at trial, not on quashing.
- The High Court correctly quashed only Section 406 IPC and declined to quash Sections 420, 344, 506 IPC where material disclosed prima facie offences.
- Apex Court will not re-appreciate evidence or substitute its view on facts unless there is manifest illegality or perversity.
Arguments by the Parties
Petitioner (Appellant):
- Dispute is purely civil; No-Dues Certificate of 10.06.2010 proves no outstanding liability.
- Criminal proceedings are mala fide, aimed at harassment and extracting additional amounts.
- FIR lodged as counterblast to injunction; inordinate delay and lack of specific overt acts render prosecution unreliable.
- Learned Magistrate’s cognizance was mechanical, without application of mind.
- High Court has jurisdiction to quash even post-charge sheet (Anand Kumar Mohatta; Abhishek).
- Continuation of decade-old proceedings is abuse of process.
Respondent No. 1 (State of Telangana):
- Appellant misrepresented stay of proceedings, demonstrating lack of bona fides and intent to stall.
Respondent No. 2 (Complainant via Amicus):
- Construction bills totaled ₹1.17 crore; payments of ₹52 lakhs left substantial balance; No-Dues Certificate is fabricated.
- Investigation, including statements of four witnesses, discloses prima facie offences.
- Criminal law may coexist with civil remedy; mere choice of criminal proceedings is not mala fide.
- Reliance on Bhajan Lal, Kesarwani, Muskan to oppose quashing.
Factual Background
Between 2008 and 2010, the appellant undertook construction work for respondent No. 2 and obtained a No-Dues Certificate on 10.06.2010. In 2015 respondent No. 2 lodged FIR No. 240/2015 under Sections 420 and 506 IPC; a 2016 charge sheet added Sections 406 and 344 IPC. The appellant’s Section 482 CrPC petition before the Telangana High Court led to quashing only of Section 406 cognizance, maintaining other charges. The Supreme Court appeal challenges that partial dismissal.
Statutory Analysis
- Section 482 CrPC: High Court’s inherent power to prevent abuse of process and secure ends of justice; to be exercised sparingly.
- Sections 420, 344, 506 IPC: Cheating, wrongful confinement, criminal intimidation—require prima facie material for cognizance.
- Section 406 IPC: Criminal breach of trust—quashed by High Court for absence of ingredients.
- Court re-affirms no “mini-trial” at quashing stage; disputed documents and evidence await trial.
- No new interpretation; confirms existing tests and illustrative grounds under Bhajan Lal and Kesarwani.
Alert Indicators
- ✔ Precedent Followed – Affirmed State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal and Pradeep Kumar Kesarwani.