Kim Wansoo vs State of Uttar Pradesh

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

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.

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