Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2026 Supreme(SC) 188

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
VIKRAM NATH, SANDEEP MEHTA, JJ.
Suresh – Appellant
Versus
State Of U.P. – Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 168 of 2026 (Arising out of SLP (CRL.) No. 15602 of 2025)
Decided On : 09-01-2026

Advocates appeared:
For the Petitioner(s): Mr. Kamlesh Maurya, Adv. Mr. Ajay Vikram Singh, AOR Ms. Priya Maurya, Adv. Mr. Rajat Kumar, Adv. Mrs. Priyanka Singh, Adv. Mr. M Aamir Faiyaz, Adv. Ms. Anushka Rajora, Adv. Mr. Rajesh Kumar, Adv. Mr. Mohit Singhal, Adv.
For the Respondent(s): Mr. Shaurya Sahay, AOR Mr. Aman Jaiswal, Adv. Ms. Palak Mathur, Adv.

Testimony untested by cross-examination lacks probative value; continuation of criminal proceedings on such basis constitutes an abuse of process.

Headnote:(A) Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Section 482 - Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Section 460 - Criminal proceedings quashed - Appellant sought quashing of proceedings based on FIR for theft and murder - High Court dismissed application, finding prima facie case - Court found absence of evidence directly implicating Appellant, and untested statement of key witness held insufficient for prosecution - Continuation of proceedings deemed an abuse of process. (Paras 2, 4, 22, 23)

(B) Evidentiary principles - Testimony of a witness who has not been cross-examined can remain admissible but with caution - Probative value is limited without cross-examination; reliance must be supported by corroborative evidence - The burden of proof lies with prosecution, not on mere suspicion. (Paras 9, 18)

(C) Appeal - Court may quash proceedings when continuation amounts to abuse of process of law to secure ends of justice. (Paras 22)

Table of Content
1. summary of facts leading to fir (Para 2 , 3)
2. arguments on the admissibility of testimonies (Para 6 , 7)
3. court's view on the merits of the case and farewell to legal proof (Para 8 , 9 , 19 , 21)
4. evidentiary principles regarding testaments not subjected to cross-examination (Para 10 , 12 , 18)
5. conclusion quashing criminal proceedings against appellant (Para 23 , 24)

ORDER :

1. Leave granted.

2. The present appeal is directed against the final judgment and order dated 1st September, 2025 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench, in Application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973¹[CrPC], being A482 No. 7219 of 2025, whereby the application preferred by the Appellant seeking quashing of the criminal proceedings instituted against him arising out of FIR No. 176 of 2006, registered for the offence punishable under Section 460 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, came to be dismissed.

3. The facts, insofar as they are necessary for the adjudication of the present appeal, are briefly stated hereunder:

3.1 As per the FIR, during the intervening night of 29th/30th August, 2006, several incidents of theft were committed in Village Rasoolpur Kayastha. It was alleged that unknown persons committed theft in a number of houses and assaulted some persons when they raised an alarm. Upon hearing the commotion, the villagers chased the assailants towards the forest.

3.2 During the course of the said chase, Ramesh, son of the informant, who was sleeping near a tubewell at the outskirts of the village, was found lying dead with injuries on his head.

3.3 A written complaint was lodged by the father of the deceased on 30th August, 2006, which came to be registered as FIR No. 176 of 2006. The complainant stated that there was no prior enmity with anyone, but expressed suspicion against the Appellant, along with Pyarelal and Satyendra, who were residents of the same village, allegedly on account of an existing family dispute.

3.4 Upon completion of investigation, a chargesheet was filed on 19th December, 2006, in which the Appellant was not named as an accused. After commencement of trial, when the complainant was examined as PW-1, he reiterated the version contained in the FIR. Thereafter, an application under Section 319 of CrPC was moved, pursuant to which summons were issued against the Appellant and two others by order dated 9th July, 2007.

3.5 The Appellant and the co-accused challenged the said order by filing an application under Section 482 of CrPC before the High Court, wherein the operation of the summoning order was stayed. Consequently, the proceedings against the Appellant were separated.

3.6 In the main trial arising out of Sessions Trial No. 170 of 2007, six accused persons, who were named in the charge-sheet, were tried and subsequently acquitted.

3.7 After conclusion of the main trial, proceedings against the Appellant and other summoned persons were revived and summons were again issued vide order dated 31st October, 2019. The Appellant again approached the High Court under Section 482 of CrPC seeking quashing of the proceedings. The said application was not argued on merits. However, liberty was granted to the Appellant to file a discharge application before the Trial Court.

3.8 The discharge application so filed remained pending for nearly five years. Vide order dated 25th July, 2025, the Trial Court rejected the discharge application. The Trial Court placed reliance upon the statement of PW-1, who had stated on oath that he had identified the applicants in torchlight and that they had caused the death of his son by striking him on the head.

4. The High Court, by the impugned order, dismissed the application under Section 482 of CrPC filed by the Appellant. The High Court held that a prima facie case was made out against the Appellant on the basis of the statement of PW-1 recorded during trial and found no reason to interfere with the order of the Trial Court reject