Supreme Court Refuses to Quash Cheating and Criminal Intimidation Charges; Holds Civil Disputes Cannot Bar Criminal Proceedings When Ingredients of Offences Appear

Case Name: Rocky v. State of Telangana & Another
Citation: 2025 INSC 1384
Date of Judgment/Order: 04 December 2025
Bench: Sanjay Karol, J.; Vipul M. Pancholi, J.

Held: The Supreme Court held that continuation of criminal proceedings against the appellant for offences under Sections 420, 344 and 506 IPC was justified, as the allegations in the FIR and the charge-sheet, supported by witness statements, disclosed a prima facie case. The Court agreed with the High Court that ingredients of cheating, wrongful confinement, and criminal intimidation were evident at this stage, whereas the ingredients of criminal breach of trust under Section 406 IPC were not made out—hence the High Court rightly quashed Section 406 alone. The Court reiterated that civil disputes can coexist with criminal proceedings and that quashing is impermissible unless the Bhajan Lal or Kesarwani thresholds are met, which the appellant failed to establish. Disputed documents such as the No-Dues Certificate could not be relied upon at the quashing stage.

Summary: The dispute arose from construction-related financial dealings between the parties between 2008 and 2010. Although a No-Dues Certificate was allegedly issued in 2010, later disagreements led to cross-allegations. FIR No. 240/2015 alleged inducement, non-payment of dues, and threats. The charge-sheet included offences under Sections 420, 406, 344 and 506 IPC. The appellant’s Section 482 CrPC petition resulted in partial relief, with the High Court quashing cognizance under Section 406 but sustaining the remainder. Before the Supreme Court, the appellant argued that the dispute was purely civil, that the No-Dues Certificate extinguished criminal liability, and that the FIR was a retaliatory act after an injunction order obtained by him. He relied on Shikhar Chemicals, Mitesh Kumar J. Sha, and Abhishek. The State and Amicus Curiae countered that significant outstanding dues existed, the authenticity of the No-Dues Certificate was disputed, and witness statements supported the allegations. The Supreme Court applied the structured tests laid down in Pradeep Kumar Kesarwani and reaffirmed the narrow scope of quashing under Bhajan Lal, holding that the appellant’s defence was neither unimpeachable nor uncontestable, and that the allegations were not absurd or inherently improbable.

Decision: The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, upholding the High Court’s order refusing to quash the proceedings under Sections 420, 344 and 506 IPC. It held that the matter required full trial, as the accused had not produced indisputable material to negate the prosecution’s case at the threshold. The Court emphasised that quashing jurisdiction must be exercised sparingly and that disputed facts cannot be adjudicated at the pre-trial stage. All pending applications were disposed of.