The Supreme Court held that criminal proceedings cannot be quashed where allegations prima facie disclose essential ingredients of an offence. The power under Section 482 CrPC is sparing; disputed documents like No-Dues Certificate cannot be relied upon at pre-trial stage. Civil remedy coexistence doesn’t bar prosecution if allegations support criminal liability.
Facts Of The Case:
The dispute in this case arose from contractual and financial dealings between the appellant (accused no. 2) and respondent no. 2 (complainant) concerning construction work undertaken between 2008 and 2010. A No Dues Certificate was issued by respondent no. 2 on 10.06.2010 and acknowledged on 12.06.2010, recording that no payments were outstanding. Subsequently, disputes emerged between the parties, leading to cross-allegations. The appellant had filed a civil suit, O.S. No. 98 of 2015, and secured an injunction order. Within three days of this order, on 09.02.2015, respondent no. 2 lodged FIR No. 240 of 2015 against the appellant under Sections 420 and 506 of the IPC. After investigation, charge sheet was filed against the appellant under Sections 420, 406, 344 and 506 of the IPC, registered as C.C. No. 1374 of 2016 before the learned III Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad. The appellant then filed an application under Section 482 CrPC before the High Court seeking quashing of the criminal proceedings.
Procedural History:
The procedural history began when the appellant filed Criminal Petition No. 1022 of 2019 before the High Court of Telangana under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. The appellant sought quashing of the order dated 19.10.2016 passed by the learned III Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad, who had taken cognizance of offences punishable under Sections 420, 406, 344 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, and issued summons to the appellant in C.C. No. 1374 of 2016. The High Court, by its final order dated 19.02.2025, partly allowed the application. It quashed the order of taking cognizance under Section 406 of the IPC, finding that the ingredients of this offence were not made out. However, the High Court declined to quash the proceedings under Sections 420, 344 and 506 of the IPC, holding that the allegations prima facie disclosed the elements of these offences. Aggrieved by this order, the appellant approached the Supreme Court by filing Criminal Appeal No. of 2025 arising out of Special Leave Petition (Criminal) No. 11151 of 2025. The Supreme Court granted leave and heard the appeal, ultimately dismissing it as devoid of merit on 04.12.2025.
READ ALSO:Supreme Court Clarifies: Renting Residential Premises for Hostels is Exempt from GST
Court Observation:
The Supreme Court observed that the core contention of the appellant, that the dispute was purely civil in nature, was untenable at the stage of quashing. The Court noted that although courts must guard against giving criminal color to civil disputes, 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. The Court further observed that the material on record, including the FIR and charge sheet, contained specific allegations that the appellant induced respondent no. 2 to undertake substantial construction work on the assurance of payment, which was allegedly withheld. Four witnesses had corroborated the complaint’s version during investigation, and these assertions could not be regarded as inherently improbable or absurd at this stage to warrant quashing.Regarding the No Dues Certificate relied upon by the appellant, the Court observed that since respondent no. 2 alleged it was fabricated, its authenticity, evidentiary value and legal effect were matters that could only be determined during trial. The Court applied the four-step test enunciated in Pradeep Kumar Kesarwani, requiring the material relied upon by the accused to be of sterling quality, sufficient to completely negate allegations, uncontested or incapable of legitimate refutation, and such that continuing trial would amount to abuse of process. The Court found that the appellant’s material failed to satisfy these benchmarks. Additionally, referring to the categories enumerated in Bhajan Lal, the Court observed that the present case did not fall within any of the narrowly crafted circumstances justifying quashing, as the allegations were neither absurd nor patently improbable, nor was there any express legal bar to prosecution. The Court emphasized that the power under Section 482 CrPC must be exercised sparingly and with circumspection, and courts must avoid embarking upon an inquiry as to the reliability or genuineness of allegations or defense documents at the pre-trial stage.
Final Decision & Judgement:
The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal as devoid of any merit, holding that the High Court committed no error in refusing to quash the proceedings for offences under Sections 420, 344 and 506 of the IPC. The Court found that the allegations in the FIR and charge sheet prima facie disclosed the essential ingredients of these offences, and the material relied upon by the appellant failed to satisfy the stringent benchmarks for quashing established in precedents such as Bhajan Lal and Pradeep Kumar Kesarwani. The Court reiterated that the power under Section 482 of the CrPC must be exercised sparingly and with circumspection, and that courts cannot embark upon an inquiry into the reliability or genuineness of allegations or defense documents at the pre-trial stage. Having found no manifest illegality, perversity or arbitrariness in the impugned order of the High Court, the Supreme Court dismissed the appeal and disposed of all pending applications.
Case Details:
Case Title: Rocky v. State of Telangana & Anr. Citation: 2025 INSC 1384 Criminal Appeal No.: (@ Special Leave Petition (Criminal) No. 11151 of 2025) Date of Judgment: December 04, 2025 Judges/Justice Name: Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice Vipul M. Pancholi
Download The Judgement Here