SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2025 Supreme(SC) 16

C. T. RAVIKUMAR, SANJAY KUMAR
Kim Wansoo – Appellant
Versus
State of Uttar Pradesh – Respondent


Advocates appeared:
For the Petitioner(s): Mr. M Shoeb Alam, Sr. Adv. Mr. Talha Abdul Rahman, AOR Mr. M Shaz Khan, Adv. Mr. Prashant Kumar, Adv. Mr. Sudhanshu Tewari, Adv. Mr. Rafid Akhter, Adv. Mr. Faizan Ahmad, Adv.
For the Respondent(s): Dr. Vijendra Singh, AOR Mr. Kumar Abhinandan, Adv. Ms. Apurva Mahndiyan, Adv. Mr. Danish Zubair Khan, AOR Dr. Lokendra Malik, Adv. Mr. Mohd. Asad Khan, Adv.

Judgement Key Points

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. (!) (!)

How to exercise extraordinary power under Article 226 or inherent power under Section 482 to quash criminal proceedings?

What is the test for when High Courts may quash FIRs or proceedings as per Bhajan Lal and subsequent judgments?

How to determine whether allegations in an FIR constitute offenses or amount to abuse of process warranting quashment?


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 refer

    Click Here to Read the rest of this document
    1
    2
    3
    4
    5
    6
    7
    8
    9
    10
    11
    SupremeToday Portrait Ad
    supreme today icon
    logo-black

    An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

    Please visit our Training & Support
    Center or Contact Us for assistance

    qr

    Scan Me!

    India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

    For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

    whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
    whatsapp-icon Back to top