MALA CHOUDHARY & ANR.versusSTATE OF TELANGANA & ANR.

                 [2025] 7 S.C.R. 1208 : 2025 INSC 870

                         Mala Choudhary & Anr.
                                     v.
                        State of Telangana & Anr.
                    (Criminal Appeal No. 3052 of 2025)
                                 18 July 2025
              [Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta,* JJ.]


                           Issue for Consideration
       Issue arose as to correctness of the order passed by the High
       Court dismissing the petition filed by the appellants, seeking
       quashing of FIR.

                                  Headnotes†
       Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – s.482 – Quashing of FIR –
       Complainant alleged non-execution of a registered sale deed in
       terms of an oral agreement to sell against the appellants – FIR
       lodged as also suit for specific performance filed – Arrest of
       the appellants and subsequently released on bail – Appellants
       filed for quashing of FIR – High Court dismissed the petition
       without addressing the merits – Correctness:
       Held: Complainant misused the process of police investigation
       so as to entangle the appellants in a totally false and frivolous
       prosecution – There is a drastic variance in the complainant’s
       allegations qua the oral agreement as narrated in the FIR vis-a-vis
       as set out in the plaint – Complainant manipulated and distorted the
       facts and used its influence for getting the FIR registered against
       the appellants – On a bare reading of the FIR, it is clear that a
       plain and simple dispute has been given the cloak of a criminal
       case by misusing the criminal machinery – Not only this, appellant
       no.1 being a 70 years’ old lady and wife of retired Army officer was
       arrested in connection with this false and frivolous FIR and had to
       remain in the custody for almost eight days – No justification for
       registering the FIR – In gross disregard to all tenets of law, the
       impugned FIR came to be registered for allegations which had no
       elements of any offence whatsoever what to talk of a cognizable
       offence – High Court acted with absolute pedantic approach, while


* Author
[2025] 7 S.C.R.                                                             1209

           Mala Choudhary & Anr. v. State of Telangana & Anr.


     disposing of the quashing petition filed by the appellants in the
     cryptic manner, without even touching the merits of the case –
     Appellants made fair offer to return the amount transferred to them
     by the complainant through valid banking transactions, however, the
     complainant refused for the same – Art.136 jurisdiction exercised –
     Impugned order and FIR quashed and set aside – Police protection
     to be provided to appellants whenever they go to Hyderabad for
     management of the properties – Complainant penalized with the
     exemplary cost for misusing the process of criminal law in a case of
     purely civil nature – Penal Code, 1860 – ss.406, 420 – Constitution
     of India – Art.136. [Paras 9-22]

                              Case Law Cited
     Rikhab Birani v. The State of Uttar Pradesh, 2025 SCC OnLine
     SC 823; Paramjeet Batra v. State of Uttarakhand and Ors. (2013)
     11 SCC 673; Sachin Garg v. State of State of UP and Anr. [2024]
     1 SCR 1134 : 2024 SCC OnLine SC 82; A.M. Mohan v. The State
     represented by SHO and Anr. [2024] 3 SCR 722; Lalit Chaturvedi
     & Ors. v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Anr., 2024 SCC OnLine SC
     171 – referred to.

                                List of Acts
     Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Penal Code, 1860; Constitution
     of India.

                             List of Keywords
     Quashing of FIR; Oral agreement to sell; Registration of sale deed;
     Misuse of police investigation; Manipulated and distorted facts;
     Used influence to get FIR registered; Cloak of criminal case; Misuse
     of criminal machinery; False and frivolous FIR; Police protection;
     Exemplary cost; Case of purely civil nature; Arrest; Kept in custody;
     Pedantic approach; Cryptic manner.

                            Case Arising From
     CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal No.
     3052 of 2025
     From the Judgment and Order dated 28.04.2023 of the High
     Court for The State of Telangana at Hyderabad in CRLP No. 7869
     of 2021
1210                                                             [2025] 7 S.C.R.

                                    Supreme Court Reports


                                    Appearances for Parties
       Advs. for the Appellants:
       Ms. Vanshaja Shukla, Ms. Divya Jyoti Singh, Vineet Nagar.
       Advs. for the Respondents:
       Ms. Devina Sehgal, Yatharth Kansal, Tadimalla Bhaskar Gowtham,
       Ms. Ekta Swarup, Abishek.s, Sandeep Singh.

                       Judgment / Order of the Supreme Court

                                                 Judgment

       Mehta, J.

1.     Heard.
2.     Leave granted.
3.     The appellants herein have approached this Court by way of the
       instant appeal, under Article 136 of the Constitution of India, for
       assailing the final order dated 28th April, 2023 passed by the High
       Court of Telangana at Hyderabad1 in Criminal Petition No. 7869 of
       2021 whereby the High Court dismissed the petition filed by the
       appellants, seeking quashing of the FIR No. 771 of 2020 registered
       at Police Station Gachibowli, Cyberabad and the Criminal Case No.
       3613 of 2021 registered on the file of XII Addl. Metropolitan Magistrate,
       Kukatpally, Ranga Reddy District pursuant to the chargesheet filed
       as a sequel to the investigation of the aforesaid FIR. The High Court
       decided the petition filed by the appellants in the following manner:
               “This Criminal Petition is filed under Section 482 of the
               Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short ‘Cr.P.C.’) by the
               petitioners/accused Nos.1 and 2 to quash the proceedings
               against them in C.C.No.3613 of 2021 on the file of the learned
               XII Additional Metropolitan Magistrate, Kukatpally. The
               offences alleged against the petitioners are under Sections
               406 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code (for short ‘IPC’).
               2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners as well as
               learned Additional Public Prosecutor for the respondent
               State. Perused the record.


1    Hereinafter, referred to as “High Court”.
[2025] 7 S.C.R.                                                               1211

               Mala Choudhary & Anr. v. State of Telangana & Anr.


               3. Learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that
               an Advocate would represent the petitioners/accused
               Nos. 1 and 2.
               4. In the event of the petitioners/accused Nos.1 and 2 filing
               an application under Section 205 of Cr.P.C., the same shall
               be considered by the Trial Court on conditions.
               5. Accordingly, Criminal Petition is disposed of.
               Miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand
               closed.”
4.     We find the approach of the High Court in casually disposing of the
       petition filed by the appellants, seeking quashing of the proceedings,
       without addressing the merits of the matter to be absolutely laconic
       and perfunctory.
5.     We contemplated setting aside the impugned order on this preliminary
       ground itself and could have remanded the matter back to the High
       Court for fresh consideration. However, the facts as set out in the
       FIR and the chargesheet, compel us to interfere in exercise of the
       extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 136 of the Constitution of India,
       in order to secure the ends of justice and to ensure that no further
       harassment and humiliation is caused to the appellants.
6.     Succinctly stated, the facts relevant and essential for disposal of the
       appeal are noted hereinbelow.
       6.1. Appellant No.1 is 70 years old, wife of Late Army personnel,
            Major General PSK Choudhary, and appellant No.2 is her
            daughter aged about 50 years. Both are residents of New Delhi.
            Appellant No.1 owns a piece of land admeasuring about 500
            square yards, bearing Plot No. 82 in Survey No. 124 and 125,
            Gachibowli Village, Rajendra Nagar Taluk, Kothaguda Gram
            Panchayat, Ranga Reddy District, Telangana.2 The said land
            was gifted to appellant No.1 by her paternal grandmother.
       6.2. Around the year 2020, respondent No.2 3 approached the
            husband of appellant No.1, i.e., Late Major General PSK
            Choudhary, showing an interest in purchasing the said plot


2    Hereinafter referred to as “subject land”.
3    Hereinafter referred to as “complainant”.
1212                                                        [2025] 7 S.C.R.

                        Supreme Court Reports


         of land. At that time, the value of the plot was assessed at
         Rs. 7,00,00,000/- (Rupees Seven Crores only). Unfortunately,
         Major General Choudhary passed away before any agreement,
         whether written or oral, could be executed between the parties.
    6.3. It is the case of the appellants that they found the management
         of the property from Delhi to be difficult, therefore, on 5th
         October, 2020, they orally agreed to sell the subject land to the
         complainant on the following terms and conditions:
         ●     The total sale consideration was settled at Rs. 5,75,00,000/-
               provided that the entire consideration amount was paid in
               a single tranche on or before 7th October, 2020.
         ●     Failure to make the said payment by 7th October, 2020
               would result in a revised offer, increasing the sale price to
               Rs. 6,50,00,000/-, with a caveat that the entire consideration
               would have to be paid on or before 7th November, 2020.
         ●     It was also agreed that the failure to make the payment by
               7th November, 2020 would result in a revised offer, further
               increasing the sale price to Rs. 7,50,00,000/-.
    6.4. Acting in furtherance of the oral agreement, the complainant
         transferred a sum of Rs. 4,05,00,000/- to the bank account of
         the appellants by different instruments/modes, i.e., cheques
         and/or RTGS up till 16th November, 2020.
    6.5. The appellant’s case is that no further amount was paid to them
         in terms of the oral agreement whereas, the complainant claims
         to have paid a sum of Rs. 75,00,000/- in cash to the appellants
         at the time of the execution of oral agreement to sell.
    6.6. In spite of failing to adhere to the terms and conditions of the
         oral agreement to sell, the complainant who happens to be an
         agent of an influential builder/property dealer i.e., M/s Sandhya
         Constructions and Estates Pvt. Ltd. in the State of Telangana,
         started pressurizing the appellants to get the sale deed registered
         in the company’s favour. The appellants kept on requesting the
         complainant to clear the outstanding amount and then come
         forward for getting the registered sale deed executed.
    6.7. As per the appellants, the complainant transmitted WhatsApp
         messages dated 27 th February, 2020 calling off the deal.
         However, when the transaction could not be materialized, the
[2025] 7 S.C.R.                                                      1213

           Mala Choudhary & Anr. v. State of Telangana & Anr.


           complainant lodged a complaint dated 11th December, 2020
           against the appellants herein on the basis whereof, an FIR
           bearing Case No. 771 of 2020 came to be registered at the Police
           Station Gachibowli, District Cyberabad on 14th December, 2020.
     6.8. It was inter alia alleged in the FIR that Mrs. Mala Choudary
          (appellant No. 1) and her daughter, Puttagunta Revathi Choudary
          (appellant No. 2), induced the complainant (respondent No. 2)
          to believe that they will sell their properties (1) Plot No. 82
          admeasuring 500sq. yds., situated at FCI Society, Sy. No. 124 &
          125, Gachibowli Village, Serilingampally Mandal, Ranga Reddy
          District; and (2) Farm admeasuring Ac. 2-00 at Chhatarpur
          Area, New Delhi to the complainant for a total consideration of
          Rs. 5,00,00,000/-(Rupees Five Crores only). The complainant
          was assured by the accused appellants that they have good
          relations with the neighbouring plot owner Mr. Devraj and they
          would ensure that he would also sell his plot to them. Believing
          the words of the appellants, the complainant agreed and entered
          into the oral agreement to sell by paying Rs. 75,00,000/- (Rupees
          Seventy-Five Lakhs only) upfront in cash to the appellants.
          As registrations were temporarily suspended in the State of
          Telangana, the parties agreed that the balance money would
          be paid at the time of registration. However, Mrs. Mala and
          Mrs. Revathy (appellants herein) pleaded with them that they
          were without any sources of income and needed the money
          urgently. They assured to come for registration once the process
          opened. Trusting the word of the appellants, at their insistence,
          the complainant had transferred an amount of Rs.4,05,00,000/-
          (Rupees Four Crores Five Lakhs only) through RTGS to the
          bank account of Puttagunta Revathi Choudary (appellant No.2).
          The details of the transaction were described as (1) Cheque
          No. 481903 dated 7th October, 2020 drawn on Axis Bank for
          an amount of Rs. 50,00,000/-; (2) Cheque dated 8th October,
          2020 drawn on Axis Bank for an amount of Rs. 1,25,00,000/-;
          (3) Cheque No. 441116 dated 22nd October, 2020 drawn on
          Axis Bank for an amount of Rs. 1,00,00,000/-; (4) Cheque No.
          484631 dated 11th November, 2020 drawn on Axis Bank for an
          amount of Rs. 90,00,000/-; and (5) Cheque No. 484644 dated
          16th November, 2020 drawn on Axis Bank for an amount of
          Rs. 40,00,000/-.
1214                                                       [2025] 7 S.C.R.

                           Supreme Court Reports


     6.9.      The complainant came to know that the accused appellants
               had come to Hyderabad and therefore, they were requested
               to sign the agreement of sale/sale deeds, which could be
               registered once registration resumes in State of Telangana,
               and subsequently complete the transactions in Delhi.
     6.10. However, after receiving such a huge amount, the accused
           appellants were stating that they would neither register the
           property, nor return the money. Further, they advanced threats
           that if anyone came to their house asking for the money, they
           would kill them. Further, Mrs. Mala Choudhary (appellant No.1)
           came to the site with her henchmen in 3 cars and threatened
           the persons who were present there. Mrs. Mala’s henchmen
           also threatened that she would neither refund the money
           nor register the property in favour of the complainant and in
           case if anyone entered the plot, serious consequences would
           ensue. Incorporating these allegations in the complaint, the
           complainant prayed to take necessary action under criminal
           law against the said accused persons.
     6.11. Appellant No.1 who is an old lady aged about 70 years was
           served a notice under Section 41A of the Code of Criminal
           Procedure, 19734 by the Investigation Officer asking her to
           join the investigation. At that point of time, appellant No.1 was
           suffering from serious medical issues arising from a vertebral
           fracture and, therefore, she requested to be allowed to join
           the investigation via video conferencing.
     6.12. The Investigation Officer did not relent to this submission of
           appellant No.1 on which, she came down to Telangana for
           presenting herself before the Magistrate. However, she was
           arrested in connection with the impugned FIR dated 14 th
           December, 2020 and was kept in custody for eight days i.e.,
           from 13th January, 2021 to 19th January, 2021.
     6.13. Appellant No.1 was granted regular bail by the competent
           Court on 19th January, 2021, but she actually came to be
           released from prison on 21st January, 2021. It is the case of
           the appellants that the Telangana police, along with the local
           police force barged into the house of the accused appellants


4   For short “CrPC”.
[2025] 7 S.C.R.                                                      1215

           Mala Choudhary & Anr. v. State of Telangana & Anr.


            at New Delhi where appellant No. 2 was present in order to
            harass and humiliate them at the instance of the complainant.
     6.14. Being aggrieved, the appellants preferred a petition under
           Section 482 CrPC in the High Court of Telangana, seeking
           quashing of the FIR and all proceedings consequent thereto.
           However, as noted above, the learned Single Judge of the
           High Court, in an absolutely cursory manner and by way of
           a cryptic order, proceeded to dispose of the petition without
           even touching the merits of the case. The said order dated
           28th April, 2023 passed by the High Court is the subject matter
           of challenge in this appeal by special leave.

     Submissions on behalf of the appellants: -
7.   Ms. Vanshaja Shukla, learned counsel for the appellants, vehemently
     and fervently contended that the substratum of the allegations as
     levelled in the impugned FIR is absolutely false and fabricated. The
     complainant i.e., respondent No. 2 represents an influential builder
     Company by the name of M/s. Sandhya Constructions & Estates
     Pvt. Ltd. The Company, which has tremendous clout in the State
     of Telangana, has used its influence to falsely implicate appellants
     in a criminal case when the facts as set out in the FIR disclose a
     dispute which is purely civil in nature. She further pointed out that
     the complainant has already availed the remedy under civil law by
     filing a suit for specific performance bearing Original Suit No. 95 of
     2021 before the competent civil Court at Telangana.
     7.1. The averments as set out in the suit clearly indicate that
          the grievance which is raised therein is limited to the oral
          agreement pertaining to the 500 sq. yard plot of land situated
          in Ranga Reddy District, Telangana. The pleadings in the suit
          and the FIR which emanate from the same transaction are in
          stark contradiction to each other. While the relief of specific
          performance sought in the suit is limited to a plot of land
          measuring 500 sq. meters, in total contrast, the complainant,
          while filing the FIR, has attempted to exaggerate the dispute by
          covering in the oral agreement another property owned by the
          appellants, i.e., a farm house at Delhi, as well as an adjoining
          piece of land owned by another party. She submitted that the
          case set up by the complainant in the impugned FIR that the
1216                                                         [2025] 7 S.C.R.

                               Supreme Court Reports


             oral agreement was for a sum of Rs. 5,00,00,000/-(Rupees
             Five Crores only) of which, a sum of Rs. 75,00,000/- was paid
             in cash is totally false and fabricated. There is no supporting
             material on the record of the case to substantiate the allegation
             of the complainant that the oral agreement was for a sum of
             Rs. 5,00,00,000/- (Rupees Five Crores only). She urged that
             even as on date and despite appellant No. 1 having faced the
             harassment and humiliation of being imprisoned for eight days
             in the patently frivolous FIR, the appellants are fairly offering
             to return the amount of Rs. 4,05,00,000/- received through
             banking transactions to the complainant i.e., respondent No.2
             on the condition that the civil suit is withdrawn.
      7.2. Ms. Shukla relied upon the judgments of this Court in Rikhab
           Birani v. The State of Uttar Pradesh5; Paramjeet Batra v.
           State of Uttarakhand and Ors.6; Sachin Garg v. State of
           State of UP and Anr.7; A.M. Mohan v. The State represented
           by SHO and Anr.8 and Lalit Chaturvedi & Ors. v. State of
           Uttar Pradesh and Anr.9 to urge that the impugned FIR and all
           proceedings sought to be taken in furtherance thereof against
           the appellants are nothing short of gross abuse of the process
           of law and hence, the same deserve to be quashed.

      Submissions on behalf of the respondents: -
8.    E-converso, learned counsel representing the complainant
      (respondent No.2) and the learned standing counsel appearing for
      the State of Telangana, have opposed the submissions advanced by
      the counsel for the appellants. They vociferously urged in one voice
      that the appellants fraudulently induced the complainant to believe
      that they would not only sell their own lands to the complainant for a
      consideration of Rs. 5,00,00,000/-, but in addition thereto, they also
      assured the complainant that they would facilitate the purchase of
      the adjoining land owned by someone else also.



5    2025 SCC OnLine SC 823.
6    (2013) 11 SCC 673.
7    2024 SCC OnLine SC 82.
8    [2024] 3 SCR 722.
9    2024 SCC OnLine SC 171.
[2025] 7 S.C.R.                                                       1217

           Mala Choudhary & Anr. v. State of Telangana & Anr.


     8.1. They alleged that the actions of the appellants were actuated
          with dishonest intent right from the inception of the dealings.
          They acted with deceit and induced the complainant into the
          transaction, without ever intending to keep their word. In this
          fraudulent manner, they persuaded the complainant to part with
          the entire sale consideration and subsequently reneged on their
          promise to execute the sale deed in favour of the complainant.
          Thus, it was contended that the FIR discloses the necessary
          ingredients of the alleged offences, and it is not a fit case
          warranting interference by this Court under Article 136 of the
          Constitution of India.
     8.2. Responding to the offer made by the appellants to return the
          amount of Rs. 4,05,00,000/- which was transferred via banking
          transactions, the counsel for the complainant urged that if the
          said amount is paid with interest, then in such situation, the
          complainant may consider settling the entire dispute with the
          appellants.
     8.3. However, Ms. Shukla, on instructions categorically stated that
          the complainant has embroiled the appellants in the false and
          malicious prosecution for the last 5 years and hence, he cannot
          claim interest on the amount.

     Discussion & Conclusion
9.   Having given our thoughtful consideration to the submissions
     advanced at bar and after going through the impugned FIR and the
     pleadings of the suit for specific performance filed by the complainant,
     we are convinced that this is a classic case of the complainant
     (respondent No.2), who seems to be wielding some clout in the State
     of Telangana, misusing the process of police investigation so as to
     entangle the accused appellants who are residents of New Delhi, in
     a totally false and frivolous prosecution for the offences punishable
     under Sections 406 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.
10. The complainant has tried to portray in the FIR that not only did
    the accused appellants agree to transfer plot No. 82 admeasuring
    500 sq. yard for a consideration of Rs. 5,00,00,000/- (Rupees Five
    Crores only), but in addition thereto, it was alleged that appellant
    No. 1 claimed that she had good relations with the neighbouring
    plot owner, Mr. Devraj and would ensure that he also sells his plot
    to respondent No. 2 on her intervention.
1218                                                       [2025] 7 S.C.R.

                         Supreme Court Reports


11. The averments in the impugned FIR are to the effect that the
    accused appellants orally agreed to sell plot No. 82 and a farm
    house at Delhi to the complainant for a total consideration of
    Rs.5,00,00,000/- (Rupees Five Crores only) whereas in a civil suit
    which was filed much after the lodging of the FIR, the complainant
    has specifically averred that the agreement for sale was made for
    a consideration of Rs. 1,15,000/- per square yard and the total
    value of the plot was Rs. 5,75,00,000/-. Thus, there is a drastic
    variance in the complainant’s allegations qua the oral agreement
    as narrated in the FIR vis-a-vis as set out in the plaint. In order to
    aggravate the allegations, the complainant also alleged in the FIR
    that the accused appellants assured the complainant that on the
    intervention of appellant No.1, the neighbouring plot owner i.e., Mr.
    Devraj would also sell his plot to the complainant. However, the
    averments in the civil suit instituted by the complainant do not bear
    even a semblance of this aspersion.
12. Thus, clearly the complainant has manipulated and distorted the facts
    and has used its influence for getting the FIR registered against the
    appellants. On a bare reading of the FIR, it is clear that a plain and
    simple dispute involving non-execution of a registered sale deed in
    terms of so-called oral agreement to sell has been given the cloak
    of a criminal case by misusing the criminal machinery. Not only this,
    appellant No. 1 being a 70 years’ old lady and wife of a retired Army
    officer was arrested in connection with this false and frivolous FIR
    and had to remain in the custody for almost eight days.
13. We are of the firm opinion that even from the admitted allegations
    set out in the complaint, there was no justification for registering the
    FIR and rather the complainant should have been instructed to avail
    the appropriate remedy by approaching the civil Court.
14. In gross disregard to all tenets of law, the impugned FIR came to
    be registered for allegations which had no elements of any offence
    whatsoever what to talk of a cognizable offence. The fact that
    appellant No. 1 was arrested in this frivolous FIR clearly shows the
    clout of the company of which the complainant is an agent, on the
    police agency as not only did the complainant manage to get the
    FIR registered, but thereafter, also saw to it that appellant No. 1 is
    arrested and humiliated by keeping her in custody for eight days.
    During the course of the hearing of the appeal, the appellants fairly
[2025] 7 S.C.R.                                                        1219

           Mala Choudhary & Anr. v. State of Telangana & Anr.


     offered to return the amount of Rs. 4,05,00,000/- transferred to them
     by the complainant through valid banking transactions but the counsel
     for the complainant on instructions stated that the complainant is
     not interested in accepting the same and demanded interest on the
     amount for settling the dispute.
15. We feel that rather than awarding interest to the complainant, it is a
    fit case wherein the complainant should be penalized with exemplary
    cost for misusing the process of criminal law in a case which was
    of purely civil nature.
16. We are also of the firm view that the High Court acted with absolute
    pedantic approach, while disposing of the quashing petition filed by
    the appellants in the cryptic manner as indicated above, without
    even touching the merits of the case.
17. The approach of the High Court in throwing out the quashing petition
    in such a cursory manner cannot be appreciated. Hence, we are
    of the opinion that the appeal merits acceptance and deserves to
    be allowed.
18. Exercising the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 136 of the
    Constitution of India, we hereby quash and set aside the impugned
    order dated 28th April, 2023 passed by the High Court and as a
    consequence, the FIR No. 771 of 2020 dated 14th December 2020,
    and all proceedings sought to be taken in furtherance thereof are
    declared to be gross abuse of the process of law and are hereby
    quashed and set aside.
19. The fair offer made by the appellants during the course of hearing
    of this appeal to refund the amount received through banking
    transactions and the blunt refusal of the complainant to the said
    proposal shall be taken on record in the proceedings of the civil suit.
20. During the course of hearing of the appeal, Ms. Shukla, learned
    counsel for the appellants had requested that police protection should
    be provided to the appellants whenever they go to Hyderabad for the
    management of their properties because they apprehend harm at the
    hands of the complainant. In view of the foregoing discussion, we
    are of the firm opinion that the appellants deserve such relief, and
    accordingly, it is hereby directed that, as and when the appellants
    proceed to Hyderabad/Telangana in connection with the management
    of their property/properties, they shall send a prior intimation by e-mail
1220                                                     [2025] 7 S.C.R.

                             Supreme Court Reports


     to the Superintendent of Police/Commissioner of Police, who shall
     ensure that appropriate security is provided to them.
21. A cost of Rs. 10,00,000/- (Rupees Ten Lakhs only) is imposed on
    the complainant i.e., respondent No. 2 for misusing the process of
    criminal law and entangling the appellants, who are the wife and
    daughter respectively of a Retd. Army Major General, in a totally
    false and concocted criminal case.
22. The cost shall be transferred to the account of the appellants, the
    details of which may be provided in the Registry within a period of
    30 days from today.
23. The appeal is allowed in these terms.
24. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.

     Result of the case: Appeal allowed.



     †
         Headnotes prepared by: Nidhi Jain