SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
C.T. Ravikumar, Sanjay Kumar, JJ.
Kim Wansoo – Appellant
Versus
State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors. – Respondents
Criminal Appeal No. 15 of 2025 (@ SLP (Crl.) No.4849 of 2020)
Decided On : 02-01-2025
(A) Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 – Section 482 [Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 – Section 528] – Constitution of India – Article 226 – Quashing of criminal proceedings – Normally, quashing of criminal proceedings would be sought and would be done in exercise of inherent power of High Court under Section 482, Cr. P.C. – But that does not mean that it could not be done only in invocation of extraordinary power under Article 226 of Constitution of India – Extraordinary power under Article 226 or inherent power under Section 482, Cr. P.C. could be exercised by High Court, either to prevent abuse of process of any Court or otherwise to secure ends of justice. (Paras 6, 7, 8 and 9)
(B) Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Sections 406, 420, 323, 504, 506 and 120-B [Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 – Sections 316(2), 318(4), 115(2), 352, 351 and 61(2)] – Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 – Section 482 [Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 – Section 528] – Criminal breach of trust, cheating, insult, criminal intimidation and conspiracy – Refusal to quash FIR – FIR did not disclose commission of offence(s) as alleged without anything being added to recitals thereof. – Besides vague allegations, rest of them, even if taken as true, would not disclose commission of any offence and make out a case against appellant – In such circumstances, asking appellant to stand trial will be nothing but abuse of process of law – As such, non-interference by refusing to exercise power to quash FIR and further proceedings based thereon, would result in miscarriage of justice – High Court clearly erred in refusing to exercise extraordinary power under Article 226 of Constitution of India to quash FIR – Criminal proceedings quashed and set aside. (Paras 12, 13 and 14)
Facts of the case:
Present appeal by special leave is directed against Judgment dated 26.08.2020 in Criminal Misc. Writ Petition passed by High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, refusing to quash FIR registered at Police Station, Sadar Bazar, District Meerut.
Findings of Court:
High Court clearly erred in refusing to exercise extraordinary power under Article 226 of Constitution of India to quash FIR and all further proceedings in pursuance thereof, qua appellant.
Result : Appeal allowed.
Key Points: - The Supreme Court held that quashing of criminal proceedings can be done under Article 226 or Section 482 to prevent abuse of process or to secure ends of justice. (!) (!) - It reiterated the categories of cases where quashing may be warranted, including when allegations do not prima facie constitute an offense, do not disclose a cognizable offense, are absurd or improbable, or there is mala fide or ulterior motives. (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) - In the present case, the High Court erred in not quashing the FIR No.64/2020; the Supreme Court quashed the FIR and all proceedings against the appellant. (!) (!)
JUDGMENT :
C.T. RAVIKUMAR, J.
1. Leave granted.
2. This appeal by special leave is directed against the judgment dated 26.08.2020 in Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No.8063 of 2020 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, refusing to quash FIR No.64/2020 registered at Police Station, Sadar Bazar, District Meerut. Furthermore, it was ordered thereunder thus: -
“However, considering the allegations made in the FIR, the provisions of Section 157, Cr. P.C. and the view taken by the Apex Court in the case of Joginder Kumar v. State of U.P. 1994, Cr.L.J. 1981, it is directed that the petitioner shall not be arrested in the above case, till the credible evidence is not available against him during the investigation or till the submission of Police Report under Section 173(2), Cr. P.C., whichever is earlier.”
3. On 14.10.2020, this Court issued notice and also stayed further proceedings based on the subject FIR. The said order is still in force.
4. The facts leading to the impugned judgment read as under: -
Hyundai Motor India Limited (for brevity, ‘HMIL’ only) awarded a contract for construction and development of a project work namely, Gurgaon, HMI Project, R.C. Works (hereafter referred to as, ‘the project’) to Hyundai Engineering & Construction India LLP (for short, ‘HEC India LLP’). Agreement dated 20.10.2017 was executed therefor, between the said companies and the appellant herein was the Project Manager of HEC India LLP. He is a foreign national. HEC India LLP, sub-contracted the work to KOTEC Automotive Services India Private Limited (for short, ‘KOTEC’) which in turn sub-contracted the RC constructions work to M/s. YSSS India Construction (for short, ‘YSSS’) and ‘YSSS’ further sub-contracted with M/s R.T. Construction, which is the complainant’s (respondent No.4 herein) entity, to obtain manpower. It is alleged in the subject FIR that ‘YSSS’ in connivance with the other accused defaulted payment to the complainant’s company. The subject FIR was registered under Sections 406, 420, 323, 504, 506 and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereafter, ‘the IPC’) against the accused, including the appellant herein on the allegation that ‘YSSS’, in connivance with the other accused defaulted payment to the company to the tune of Rs.9 Crores. Pursuant to the lodgement of the FIR, the appellant received notices dated nil, on 06.08.2020 and 09.09.2020, issued under Section 91 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereafter, ‘the Cr.P.C.’) calling upon him to produce certain documents. Though, the appellant produced documents in his possession before the Investigating Officer, he got further notices insisting for production of more documents which, according to him, are not in his possession. It is in the aforesaid circumstances and raising various contentions that the appellant approached the High Court seeking quashment of the FIR, which is produced in these proceedings as Annexure P-9.
5. Multifarious contentions have been raised, unsuccessfully, by the appellant to support his prayer for quashment of the subject FIR before the High Court. He reiterated such contentions before us, as well. But before dealing with such contentions, as also the challenge against the impugned judgment it is only apposite to refer to the relevant recitals from the subject FIR, which read as follows: -
“About all aforementioned people conniving with intention to cause loss to the Applicant and to make gain for themselves, hatching criminal conspiracy, committing cheating, fraud and. forgery against the Applicant and misappropriating Applicant's money - Hon'ble Sir, This is to submit that Applicant Tahir, Partner M/s RT Construction, 202 B/9, Ground Floor, Thatwari Complex, Westend Road, Near Meerut Public School, Meerut ant, Meerut has been doing his) business from a long time. The Applicant has been doing business of construction for approximately the last 30 years. Applicant's brother Nasir and Partner Ravindra to look after the said business along
State of A.P. v. Golconda Linga Swamy
Eastern Spg. Mills v. Rajiv Poddar
State of Haryana and Ors. v. Bhajan Lal and Ors.
Mohammad Wajid and Another. v. State of U.P. and Anr.
Joginder Kumar v. State of U.P. 1994 CrLJ 1981 [Para 2] – Relied.
(1) Quashing of criminal proceedings – Extraordinary power under Article 226 or inherent power under Section 482, Cr. P.C. could be exercised by High Court, either to prevent abuse of process of any ....
Criminal proceedings cannot cloak civil disputes; FIR must disclose offence ingredients, and evidence evaluation is not permissible at quashing stage.
The court established that the inherent power to quash FIRs under Section 482 Cr.P.C. should be exercised cautiously and only in rare cases where no cognizable offence is disclosed.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the inherent power under section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code should be sparingly used and only in exceptional cases to prevent abuse of....
Cheating, wrongful confinement and criminal intimidation – Existence of civil remedies does not preclude criminal prosecution where allegations disclose essential ingredients of an offence – Civil an....
The High Court's inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. should be exercised sparingly to prevent abuse of process, and not to stifle legitimate prosecution.
Point of Law : Cheating - Settlement Agreement – Fir quashed - Parties having settled disputes amongst themselves and dispute arising from commercial transactions amongst themselves with no loss to S....
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.