Appeal
Appeal against the High Court order partly allowed the petition filed section 482 Cr.P.C
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 the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred as “the CrPC”) by quashing cognizance under Section 406 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred as “the IPC”), while maintaining cognizance under Sections 420, 344 and 506 of the IPC.
Facts
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.
FIR and Cognizance
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.
Hon’ble High Corut partly allowed the petition by quashing cognizance of some offences
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 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.
Analysis
22. We have carefully considered the rival submissions and perused the material placed on record.
Primary issue
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 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.
Parameters for quashing a criminal case under section 482 Cr.P.C
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 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.
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.
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.
If the case does not fall within the recognised parameters for quashing courts must avoid delving into disputed facts at the pre-trial stage
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.
Conclusion
Appeal dismissed
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.
Judgments were involved
- State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal (1992 Supp (1) SCC 335) – Cited for laying down the seven principles governing the exercise of the High Court’s inherent power under Section 482 of the CrPC to quash criminal proceedings.
- Pradeep Kumar Kesarwani v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr. (2025 INSC 945) – Cited for the stringent four-step test to be applied when the accused seeks quashing based on documentary evidence.
- Mitesh Kumar J. Sha v. State of Karnataka [(2021) 16 SCC 76] – Cited to emphasize that the mere fact that a dispute may have a civil profile does not, by itself, justify the quashing of criminal proceedings.
- Rajiv Thapar & Ors. v. Madan Lal Kapoor [(2013) 3 SCC 330] – Cited on the requirement that the documents relied upon by the accused for quashing must be of sterling and unimpeachable quality.
- Muskan v. Ishaan Khan (Sataniya) and Others [2025 INSC 1287] – Cited to caution against converting a proceeding under Section 482 of the CrPC into an impermissible “mini-trial” by scrutinizing the evidence.
- Anand Kumar Mohatta v. State (NCT of Delhi) [(2019) 17 SCC 592] – Cited on the general ambit of the power under Section 482 CrPC and the need to exercise it sparingly.
Acts and Sections
- The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC)
- Section 482: (Saving of inherent power of High Court)—The provision invoked by the appellant for quashing the criminal proceedings.
- The Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC)
- Section 420: Cheating and dishonestly inducing delivery of property (Proceedings maintained).
- Section 344: Wrongful confinement for ten or more days (Proceedings maintained).
- Section 506: Punishment for criminal intimidation (Proceedings maintained).
- Section 406: Punishment for criminal breach of trust (Cognizance quashed by the High Court).
Party
Rocky (Appellant) versus State of Telangana & Anr. (Respondents) - Criminal Appeal No. 5252 of 2025 (@ Special Leave Petition (Criminal) No. 11151 of 2025) - 2025 INSC 1384 - December 04, 2025 Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sanjay Karol and Hon’ble Mr. Justice Vipul M. Pancholi, J.
