Full Judgment Text
2025 INSC 1494
NON-REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. OF 2025
(ARISING OUT OF SLP (CRL.) NO. 11715/2024)
UMA MAHESWARI & ANR. ...APPELLANT(S)
VERSUS
THE STATE & ANR. ....RESPONDENT(S)
J U D G M E N T
NAGARATHNA, J.
Leave granted.
2. Being aggrieved by the order dated 22.11.2023
passed in Criminal O.P. No. 24649 of 2023 by the Madras
High Court, the appellants are before this Court. By the
said order, their application filed under Section 482 of
the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short, “CrPC”)
has been dismissed.
3. Briefly stated, the facts of the case as per the
prosecution are that one Vasanthi, sister of respondent
No.2/complainant, availed a loan of Rupees Twenty Lakhs
only (Rs. 20,00,000/-) from appellant No.2/accused No.5.
Signature Not Verified
As security for the said loan, Vasanthi had executed a
Digitally signed by
NEETU SACHDEVA
Date: 2025.12.23
15:35:10 IST
Reason:
Power of Attorney in favour of the appellant
1
No.2/accused No.5 in respect of the property bearing
R.S. No. 153/1/1, Cad No. 356, Patta No. 1023 (Plot No.
12) to an extent of 1980 sq ft. situate at Villanur
Revenue Village (No.32) (‘suit property’).
4. By way of the said Power of Attorney, it is
alleged that appellant No.1/accused No.4 fraudulently
executed a sale deed in respect of the suit property in
favour of his wife who, in the present case, is
appellant No.1/accused No.4. Appellant No.1/accused
No.4 subsequently sold the suit property to accused No.2
(Devaki) for a consideration of Rupees Twenty Lakhs only
(Rs. 20,00,000/-). It is alleged that on the date of the
execution of the sale deed in favour of accused No.2,
i.e., 16.09.2013, the accused persons, in furtherance of
a common intention to dishonestly grab the suit property
owned by Vasanthi, threatened her as well as her sons
with their life.
5. Later, on 19.09.2013, respondent No.2/complainant
filed a missing complaint before the Inspector of
Police, P.S. Villianur, Puducherry, alleging that his
sister/Vasanthi and her three sons had been missing
since 18.09.2013. On the basis of the aforesaid
complaint, FIR bearing No. 192/2013 was registered with
P.S. Villianur, Puducherry for “Men Missing”. Upon
2
investigation, Vasanthi and her family were found at the
residence of one Nagar Pillai. Subsequently, based on
the statements of Vasanthi and her family, the charging
sections in FIR No. 192/2013 were altered from “Men
Missing” to Sections 405, 420, 386, 506 (part 2) read
with Section 34 of the IPC. Upon completion of the
investigation, chargesheet bearing No. 164/2015 was
filed against five accused persons, including the
appellants(s) herein, under Sections 405, 421, 386, 506
(part 2) read with Section 34 and Section 120B of the
IPC.
6. Being Aggrieved, accused Nos. 1 and 2 preferred a
petition bearing Crl. O.P. No. 148/2020 before the High
Court seeking quashing of the criminal proceedings in
C.C. No. 233/2018 pending on the file of Judicial
Magistrate No. III, Puducherry.
7. By order dated 05.08.2022, the High Court allowed
Crl. O.P. No. 148/2020 and quashed the proceedings as
against accused Nos. 1 and 2 on the ground that
respondent No.2/complainant had preferred a complaint
against accused Nos. 1 and 2 with an ulterior motive. It
was further noted that the said accused persons had
purchased the suit property from appellant No.1/accused
No.4 and there was no material on record to prove that
3
accused No.1 and 2 were in any way involved in the
alleged offences. High Court also took note of the fact
that respondent No.2/complainant himself had affixed the
signature of the witness to the sale deed executed by
appellant no.1/accused No.4 in favour of accused No.2.
Moreover, in light of the frequent alteration reports
which were found to be contradictory and the fact that
respondent No.2/complainant did not appear to contest
the said quashing petition, High Court was inclined to
quash the criminal proceedings pending against accused
Nos.1 and 2.
8. Subsequently, the appellant(s) herein preferred a
criminal petition bearing Crl. O.P. No. 24649/2023
before the High Court seeking quashing of the
proceedings in C.C. No. 233/2018 arising out of FIR No.
192/2013.
9. By the impugned order dated 22.11.2023, the High
Court declined to quash the criminal proceedings as
against appellant(s) herein on the ground that the
validity of the sale transaction between appellant(s)
and Vasanthi appeared to be hit by fraud and
misrepresentation, thereby forming part of the criminal
prosecution. The said finding was arrived at in view of
the fact that the Power of Attorney was executed by
4
Vasanthi in favour of appellant No.2/accused No.4 only
as a security for the loan availed. However, by making
use of the said Power of Attorney, appellant
No.2/accused No.4 transferred the suit property to his
own wife, appellant No.1 herein.
10. Hence, the present appeal.
11. We have heard Shri Vinodh Kanna B., learned
counsel for the appellant(s) and Shri Aravindh S.,
learned standing counsel for the respondent(s) – Union
Territory of Puducherry and perused the material on
record.
12. During the course of submissions, learned counsel
for the appellant(s) drew our attention to order dated
05.08.2022 passed by the learned Single Judge of the
High Court in Criminal O.P. No.148 of 2020 to contend
that the petitioners therein, who are none other than
the purchasers from the appellants herein, were granted
the relief under Section 482 of the CrPC inasmuch as
their Criminal Original Petition was allowed and the
charge sheet in C.C. No.233 of 2018 pending on the file
of the Judicial Magistrate-III, Puducherry was quashed
as against them.
5
13. Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that
Criminal O.P. No.148 of 2020 was disposed of on
05.08.2022 and thereafter Criminal O.P. No.24649 of 2023
was filed by the appellants herein before the High
Court. Since the appellants herein and the petitioners
before the High Court in the earlier matter were all
part of the same transaction in respect of which a
common FIR was filed and they were all arrayed as
accused, the High Court ought to have considered order
dated 05.08.2022 passed in Criminal O.P. No.148 of 2020
and granted relief to the appellants herein.
14. Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that
the aforesaid order has attained finality, and
therefore, the petitioners therein being accused Nos.1
and 2 have been granted the relief but the appellants
herein being accused Nos.4 and 5 have been denied the
said relief. It is not known as to what has happened to
accused No.3. Therefore, on the principle of parity and
on the fact that the accused are all part of the very
same FIR and when once it has been quashed insofar as
accused Nos. 1 and 2 are concerned, the said relief may
also be extended to the appellants, who are accused Nos.
4 and 5. He therefore, submitted that impugned order may
be set aside and the appeal may be allowed.
6
15. Per contra , learned standing counsel for the
respondent - Union Territory of Puducherry submitted
that the role of the appellants herein is different and
distinct from what has been attributed to accused Nos.1
and 2, who were merely purchasers. However, the
appellants herein are the ones who sold the subject
property to accused Nos.1 and 2. Hence, the complaint
was filed as against all of them. He submitted that
there is no merit in this appeal and that the impugned
order may not be interfered with and the appeal may be
dismissed.
16. We have considered the submissions advanced at the
Bar and we find that the High Court ought to have
considered the order dated 05.08.2022 passed in Criminal
O.P. No.148 of 2020 and applied the same to the case of
the appellants herein. But, there is no reference to the
said order in the impugned order. The High Court ought
to have applied the aforesaid order in the instant case.
17. Also as FIR No.192 of 2013 dated 19.09.2013 was
filed in respect of all the accused, and therefore, the
case of the appellants herein ought to have been allowed
and the criminal complaint ought to have been quashed.
7
18. In the circumstances, we find that the criminal
complaint as against the appellants herein also ought to
be quashed. Hence, the same is quashed. Consequently,
FIR No. 192 of 2013 and CC No.233 of 2018 pending on the
file of the learned Judicial Magistrate-III, Puducherry,
stand quashed.
19. The appeal is allowed and disposed of in the
aforesaid terms.
Pending application(s), if any, shall stand
disposed of.
……………………………………………………………J.
(B.V. NAGARATHNA)
……………………………………………………………J.
(PRASANNA B. VARALE)
NEW DELHI;
DECEMBER 02, 2025
8
NON-REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. OF 2025
(ARISING OUT OF SLP (CRL.) NO. 11715/2024)
UMA MAHESWARI & ANR. ...APPELLANT(S)
VERSUS
THE STATE & ANR. ....RESPONDENT(S)
J U D G M E N T
NAGARATHNA, J.
Leave granted.
2. Being aggrieved by the order dated 22.11.2023
passed in Criminal O.P. No. 24649 of 2023 by the Madras
High Court, the appellants are before this Court. By the
said order, their application filed under Section 482 of
the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short, “CrPC”)
has been dismissed.
3. Briefly stated, the facts of the case as per the
prosecution are that one Vasanthi, sister of respondent
No.2/complainant, availed a loan of Rupees Twenty Lakhs
only (Rs. 20,00,000/-) from appellant No.2/accused No.5.
Signature Not Verified
As security for the said loan, Vasanthi had executed a
Digitally signed by
NEETU SACHDEVA
Date: 2025.12.23
15:35:10 IST
Reason:
Power of Attorney in favour of the appellant
1
No.2/accused No.5 in respect of the property bearing
R.S. No. 153/1/1, Cad No. 356, Patta No. 1023 (Plot No.
12) to an extent of 1980 sq ft. situate at Villanur
Revenue Village (No.32) (‘suit property’).
4. By way of the said Power of Attorney, it is
alleged that appellant No.1/accused No.4 fraudulently
executed a sale deed in respect of the suit property in
favour of his wife who, in the present case, is
appellant No.1/accused No.4. Appellant No.1/accused
No.4 subsequently sold the suit property to accused No.2
(Devaki) for a consideration of Rupees Twenty Lakhs only
(Rs. 20,00,000/-). It is alleged that on the date of the
execution of the sale deed in favour of accused No.2,
i.e., 16.09.2013, the accused persons, in furtherance of
a common intention to dishonestly grab the suit property
owned by Vasanthi, threatened her as well as her sons
with their life.
5. Later, on 19.09.2013, respondent No.2/complainant
filed a missing complaint before the Inspector of
Police, P.S. Villianur, Puducherry, alleging that his
sister/Vasanthi and her three sons had been missing
since 18.09.2013. On the basis of the aforesaid
complaint, FIR bearing No. 192/2013 was registered with
P.S. Villianur, Puducherry for “Men Missing”. Upon
2
investigation, Vasanthi and her family were found at the
residence of one Nagar Pillai. Subsequently, based on
the statements of Vasanthi and her family, the charging
sections in FIR No. 192/2013 were altered from “Men
Missing” to Sections 405, 420, 386, 506 (part 2) read
with Section 34 of the IPC. Upon completion of the
investigation, chargesheet bearing No. 164/2015 was
filed against five accused persons, including the
appellants(s) herein, under Sections 405, 421, 386, 506
(part 2) read with Section 34 and Section 120B of the
IPC.
6. Being Aggrieved, accused Nos. 1 and 2 preferred a
petition bearing Crl. O.P. No. 148/2020 before the High
Court seeking quashing of the criminal proceedings in
C.C. No. 233/2018 pending on the file of Judicial
Magistrate No. III, Puducherry.
7. By order dated 05.08.2022, the High Court allowed
Crl. O.P. No. 148/2020 and quashed the proceedings as
against accused Nos. 1 and 2 on the ground that
respondent No.2/complainant had preferred a complaint
against accused Nos. 1 and 2 with an ulterior motive. It
was further noted that the said accused persons had
purchased the suit property from appellant No.1/accused
No.4 and there was no material on record to prove that
3
accused No.1 and 2 were in any way involved in the
alleged offences. High Court also took note of the fact
that respondent No.2/complainant himself had affixed the
signature of the witness to the sale deed executed by
appellant no.1/accused No.4 in favour of accused No.2.
Moreover, in light of the frequent alteration reports
which were found to be contradictory and the fact that
respondent No.2/complainant did not appear to contest
the said quashing petition, High Court was inclined to
quash the criminal proceedings pending against accused
Nos.1 and 2.
8. Subsequently, the appellant(s) herein preferred a
criminal petition bearing Crl. O.P. No. 24649/2023
before the High Court seeking quashing of the
proceedings in C.C. No. 233/2018 arising out of FIR No.
192/2013.
9. By the impugned order dated 22.11.2023, the High
Court declined to quash the criminal proceedings as
against appellant(s) herein on the ground that the
validity of the sale transaction between appellant(s)
and Vasanthi appeared to be hit by fraud and
misrepresentation, thereby forming part of the criminal
prosecution. The said finding was arrived at in view of
the fact that the Power of Attorney was executed by
4
Vasanthi in favour of appellant No.2/accused No.4 only
as a security for the loan availed. However, by making
use of the said Power of Attorney, appellant
No.2/accused No.4 transferred the suit property to his
own wife, appellant No.1 herein.
10. Hence, the present appeal.
11. We have heard Shri Vinodh Kanna B., learned
counsel for the appellant(s) and Shri Aravindh S.,
learned standing counsel for the respondent(s) – Union
Territory of Puducherry and perused the material on
record.
12. During the course of submissions, learned counsel
for the appellant(s) drew our attention to order dated
05.08.2022 passed by the learned Single Judge of the
High Court in Criminal O.P. No.148 of 2020 to contend
that the petitioners therein, who are none other than
the purchasers from the appellants herein, were granted
the relief under Section 482 of the CrPC inasmuch as
their Criminal Original Petition was allowed and the
charge sheet in C.C. No.233 of 2018 pending on the file
of the Judicial Magistrate-III, Puducherry was quashed
as against them.
5
13. Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that
Criminal O.P. No.148 of 2020 was disposed of on
05.08.2022 and thereafter Criminal O.P. No.24649 of 2023
was filed by the appellants herein before the High
Court. Since the appellants herein and the petitioners
before the High Court in the earlier matter were all
part of the same transaction in respect of which a
common FIR was filed and they were all arrayed as
accused, the High Court ought to have considered order
dated 05.08.2022 passed in Criminal O.P. No.148 of 2020
and granted relief to the appellants herein.
14. Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that
the aforesaid order has attained finality, and
therefore, the petitioners therein being accused Nos.1
and 2 have been granted the relief but the appellants
herein being accused Nos.4 and 5 have been denied the
said relief. It is not known as to what has happened to
accused No.3. Therefore, on the principle of parity and
on the fact that the accused are all part of the very
same FIR and when once it has been quashed insofar as
accused Nos. 1 and 2 are concerned, the said relief may
also be extended to the appellants, who are accused Nos.
4 and 5. He therefore, submitted that impugned order may
be set aside and the appeal may be allowed.
6
15. Per contra , learned standing counsel for the
respondent - Union Territory of Puducherry submitted
that the role of the appellants herein is different and
distinct from what has been attributed to accused Nos.1
and 2, who were merely purchasers. However, the
appellants herein are the ones who sold the subject
property to accused Nos.1 and 2. Hence, the complaint
was filed as against all of them. He submitted that
there is no merit in this appeal and that the impugned
order may not be interfered with and the appeal may be
dismissed.
16. We have considered the submissions advanced at the
Bar and we find that the High Court ought to have
considered the order dated 05.08.2022 passed in Criminal
O.P. No.148 of 2020 and applied the same to the case of
the appellants herein. But, there is no reference to the
said order in the impugned order. The High Court ought
to have applied the aforesaid order in the instant case.
17. Also as FIR No.192 of 2013 dated 19.09.2013 was
filed in respect of all the accused, and therefore, the
case of the appellants herein ought to have been allowed
and the criminal complaint ought to have been quashed.
7
18. In the circumstances, we find that the criminal
complaint as against the appellants herein also ought to
be quashed. Hence, the same is quashed. Consequently,
FIR No. 192 of 2013 and CC No.233 of 2018 pending on the
file of the learned Judicial Magistrate-III, Puducherry,
stand quashed.
19. The appeal is allowed and disposed of in the
aforesaid terms.
Pending application(s), if any, shall stand
disposed of.
……………………………………………………………J.
(B.V. NAGARATHNA)
……………………………………………………………J.
(PRASANNA B. VARALE)
NEW DELHI;
DECEMBER 02, 2025
8