Facts Of The Case:
Vasanthi, sister of respondent No. 2/complainant, availed a loan of Rupees Twenty Lakhs from appellant No. 2 (accused No. 5). As security for the said loan, Vasanthi executed a Power of Attorney in favour of appellant No. 1 (accused No. 4) concerning a property measuring 1980 sq. ft. situated at Villanur Revenue Village. It was alleged that appellant No. 1 fraudulently executed a sale deed in respect of the suit property in favour of his wife, who is appellant No. 1 herself. Subsequently, appellant No. 1 sold the property to accused No. 2 (Devaki) for a consideration of Rupees Twenty Lakhs on 16.09.2013. During the execution of this sale deed, it was alleged that the accused persons, acting with common intention, threatened Vasanthi and her sons with bodily harm.Following these events, on 19.09.2013, respondent No. 2 filed a missing complaint reporting that his sister Vasanthi and her three sons had been missing since 18.09.2013. Based on this complaint, FIR No. 192/2013 was registered for “Men Missing” at P.S. Villianur, Puducherry. During investigation, Vasanthi and her family were located at the residence of one Nagar Pillai. Based on their statements, the charges were altered to include Sections 405, 420, 386, 506 (part 2) read with Section 34 of the IPC. Upon completion of investigation, chargesheet No. 164/2015 was filed against five accused persons, including the appellants, under Sections 405, 421, 386, 506 (part 2) read with Section 34 and Section 120B of the IPC.
Procedural History:
The procedural history began when accused Nos. 1 and 2 filed Criminal O.P. No. 148/2020 before the Madras High Court seeking quashing of criminal proceedings in C.C. No. 233/2018 pending before the Judicial Magistrate No. III, Puducherry. On 05.08.2022, the High Court allowed this petition and quashed the proceedings against accused Nos. 1 and 2, observing that the complaint against them was filed with ulterior motive and there was no material to prove their involvement. Subsequently, the appellants herein (accused Nos. 4 and 5) filed Criminal O.P. No. 24649 of 2023 before the High Court under Section 482 CrPC seeking similar relief. However, by order dated 22.11.2023, the High Court dismissed their application. Being aggrieved by this dismissal, the appellants approached the Supreme Court by filing Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No. 11715/2024. The Supreme Court granted leave and converted it into the present criminal appeal.
READ ALSO:Supreme Court: Enforcing Civil Rights Through Injunction Order is Not Wrongful Restraint
Court Observation:
The Supreme Court observed that the High Court had erred by not considering its earlier order dated 05.08.2022 passed in Criminal O.P. No.148 of 2020 while adjudicating the appellants’ petition. The Court noted that the earlier order had granted relief to accused Nos. 1 and 2 by quashing the proceedings against them, and this order had attained finality. Since all accused were part of the same transaction arising from FIR No.192 of 2013, the Court held that the principle of parity must apply. The Court emphasized that when co-accused in the same FIR have been granted relief under Section 482 CrPC, the same benefit ought to be extended to other accused persons similarly situated. The Court further observed that there was no justification to deny the same relief to the appellants when the factual matrix and the criminal proceedings originated from the same FIR and chargesheet. The Supreme Court concluded that the criminal complaint against the appellants also deserved to be quashed on the ground of parity, thereby setting aside the impugned order of the High Court.
Final Decision & Judgement:
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal and quashed the criminal proceedings against the appellants herein. The Court held that since accused Nos. 1 and 2 had already been granted relief under Section 482 CrPC by the High Court through order dated 05.08.2022 in Criminal O.P. No.148 of 2020, and that order had attained finality, the same benefit must be extended to the appellants on the principle of parity. The Court observed that FIR No.192 of 2013 was filed in respect of all accused persons and all were part of the same transaction, therefore denying relief to the appellants while granting it to co-accused would be unjust. Consequently, the Supreme Court set aside the impugned order dated 22.11.2023 passed by the Madras High Court in Criminal O.P. No.24649 of 2023 and quashed FIR No.192 of 2013 as well as C.C. No.233 of 2018 pending before the learned Judicial Magistrate-III, Puducherry. All pending applications were disposed of accordingly.
Case Details:
Case Title: Uma Maheswari & Anr. v. The State & Anr. Citation: 2025 INSC 1494 Criminal Appeal No.: (Arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 11715/2024) Date of Judgment:December 02, 2025 Judges/Justice Name: Justice B.V. Nagarathna and Justice Prasanna B. Varale
Download The Judgement Here