2025 INSC 8

SLP (Crl.) No.4849 of 2020 Page 1 of 16

Reportable

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

Criminal Appeal No. of 2025

(@ SLP (Crl.) No.4849 of 2020)

Kim Wansoo

…Appellant(s)

Versus

State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors.

…Respondent(s)

J U D G M E N T

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

SLP (Crl.) No.4849 of 2020 Page 2 of 16

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

SLP (Crl.) No.4849 of 2020 Page 3 of 16

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

SLP (Crl.) No.4849 of 2020 Page 4 of 16

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 with the Applicant. Applicant has

SLP (Crl.) No.4849 of 2020 Page 5 of 16

been providing various services in construction

including providing services of skilled and unskilled

labourers to other companies. Aforementioned No. -

6 SEUNG HWI, HER (Managing Director) YOU

SEUNG SANG SA INDIA CONSTRUOTION PVT LTD

(YSSS), which is a subsidiary company of the main

company MS HUNDAI MOTOR INDIA GROUP, had

issued a work order to the Applicant on 15.06.2018

because the Applicant has been providing labourers

to Korean company for long time. Therefore, on

basis of Applicant's good will, aforementioned

people sent work order on Applicant's mail ID, photo

copy of which was sent to the Applicant at bis. house

at Meerut by the aforementioned person) through

their employee. Applicant finalized final rates after

discussing with all aforementioned persons and after

the officers of aforementioned company agreed to it,

contract was drafted in Meerut and work was

assigned. Applicant's company provided labourers

as per requirements of the aforementioned company

from August 2018 till 2019, for which the Applicant

made bills on time to time and gave to the

aforementioned persons. The Bill was to the tune of

approximately Rs 9 crore, of which the

SLP (Crl.) No.4849 of 2020 Page 6 of 16

aforementioned company paid Rs.1, 70,51,000/- to

the Applicant from time to time. Thereafter, while

misleading the Applicant, additional work to the tune

of Rs 8,31,94,200/- was done. The Applicant gave

good performance because the Applicant felt that it

was a foreign company and India should not be

maligned. After the work was completed, M/S YOU

SEUNG SANG SA JNDIA CONSTRUCTION PVT LTD

(YSSS) issued cheques of approximately

Rs.8,31,94,200/- in favour of Applicant's partnership

firm, all of which were dishonoured. The Applicant

complained to M/S HUNDAI MOTQR INDIA, which is

the main company, on which M/S YOU SEUNG SANG

SA INDIA CONSTRUCTION PVT LTD (YSSS) was

summoned and a reconciliation was made not to file

any case and now our other company. MS KOTEC

AUTOMOTIVE SERVICE INDIA (P) LTD shall make

payment to you because M/S YOU SEUNG SANG SA

INDIA CONSTRUCTION PVT LTD (YSSS) had largest

liability towards the Applicant, which was to the tune

of approximately Rs 8,31,94,200/- aforementioned

company M/S HUNDAI MOTOR INDIA settled

payments of 16 persons along with the Applicant and

while accepting its responsibility nominated M/S

SLP (Crl.) No.4849 of 2020 Page 7 of 16

Khaan OTEC AUTOMOTIVE SERRVICE INDIA (P)

LTD, which is a part of aforementioned company, to

handle moneys. Officers of aforementioned

company agreed that now payment of only Rs.

7,67,30,826/- shall be done to Applicant, to which the

Applicant agreed. Of this, 40 per cent payment was

to be done by the aforementioned comp any

immediately and the remaining payment was to be

made after two months. Officers of aforementioned

companies reduced this reconciliation in writing and

gave a copy of it to the Applicant and also gave two

cheques of Rs. 61,38,446/- and Rs 2,45,53,864/- on

30.11.2019, of which cheque of Rs 61,38,446/- was

encashed and the remaining cheque of

Rs.2,45,53,864/- was dishonoured. The Applicant

kept on visiting the aforementioned persons

repeatedly but all aforementioned persons kept on

giving excuses and avoiding the Applicant.

Applicant and Applicant's brother Nasir went to the.

office of aforementioned persons on 03.10.2019 to

demand payment but the aforementioned persons

misbehaved with Applicant, his brother and partner

Ravindra Kumar, subjected them to obscenities and

issued threat to kill them if they went there again.

SLP (Crl.) No.4849 of 2020 Page 8 of 16

Also, there was no reply to several phone calls made.

Applicant's brother Nasir Ali Khan kept on visiting

the office of aforementioned persons for remaining

amount but "the aforementioned persons did not

give any money to Applicant and his brother Nasir

Ali Khan. Instead, on last visit to the office of

aforementioned persons, aforementioned persons

assaulted and abused Applicant's brother, as; result

of which applicant’s brother suffered serious trauma

and because of which Applicant's brother Nasir Ali

Khan passed away on 30.01.2020. Applicant has

proof of acts 'of aforementioned persons in the form

of documents in his safe custody, all of which are

enclosed to the Application. All aforementioned

persons have indulged in criminal conspiracy and

forged documents through their company to commit

cheating, fraud and misappropriation against

Applicant-and other persons. Applicant has lodged

complaint in aforementioned matter at Sadar Bazar

Police Station but no action has been taken till this

date. Therefore, request is being made to Hon'ble Sir

to kindly order Officer In-Charge of Sadar Bazar

Police Station to register case aga inst

aforementioned persons under aforementioned

SLP (Crl.) No.4849 of 2020 Page 9 of 16

sections and take stringent legal action against them

and to help the Applicant to recover aforementioned

amount from the aforementioned persons.”

(underline supplied)

6. It is worthwhile to refer to some of the decisions of

this Court in regard to the power of the High Court to

quash criminal proceedings before considering the rival

contentions with reference to the allegations made in the

subject FIR, as extracted above. It is true that normally,

quashing of criminal proceedings would be sought and

would be done in exercise of the inherent power of the

High Court under Section 482, Cr. P.C. But certainly, that

does not mean that it could not be done only in

invocation of the extraordinary power under Article 226

of the Constitution of India. This position was made clear

by this Court in State of Haryana and Ors. v. Bhajan Lal

and Ors.

1

. After considering the statutory provisions of

Cr. P.C. and the earlier decisions of this Court, in the said

decision this Court held that in the following categories

of cases, the extraordinary power under Article 226 or

the inherent power under Section 482, Cr. P.C. could be

exercised by the High Court, either to prevent abuse of

1

AIR 1992 SC 604; 1990 INSC 363

SLP (Crl.) No.4849 of 2020 Page 10 of 16

process of any Court or otherwise to secure the ends of

justice. This Court went on to observe and hold that it

might not be possible to lay down any precise, clearly

defined and sufficiently channelised and inflexible

guidelines or rigid formula and exhaustive list of myriad

kinds of cases wherein such power should be exercised

and encapsulate the following cases falling under such

categories: -

“102. In the backdrop of the interpretation of the

various relevant provisions of the Code under

Chapter XIV and of the principles of law enunciated

by this Court in a series of decisions relating to the

exercise of the extraordinary power under Article

226 or the inherent powers under Section 482 of the

Code which we have extracted and reproduced

above, we give the following categories of cases by

way of illustration wherein such power could be

exercised either to prevent abuse of the process of

any court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice,

though it may not be possible to lay down any

precise, clearly defined and sufficiently channelised

and inflexible guidelines or rigid formulae and to

give an exhaustive list of myriad kinds of cases

wherein such power should be exercised.

SLP (Crl.) No.4849 of 2020 Page 11 of 16

(1) Where the allegations made in the first

information report or the complaint, even if they

are taken at their face value and accepted in their

entirety do not prima facie constitute any offence

or make out a case against the accused.

(2) Where the allegations in the first information

report and other materials, if any, accompanying

the FIR do not disclose a cognizable offence,

justifying an investigation by police officers

under Section 156(1) of the Code except under an

order of a Magistrate within the purview of

Section 155(2) of the Code.

(3) Where the uncontroverted allegations made

in the FIR or complaint and the evidence

collected in support of the same do not disclose

the commission of any offence and make out a

case against the accused.

(4) Where, the allegations in the FIR do not

constitute a cognizable offence but constitute

only a non-cognizable offence, no investigation is

permitted by a police officer without an order of

a Magistrate as contemplated under Section

155(2) of the Code.

SLP (Crl.) No.4849 of 2020 Page 12 of 16

(5) Where the allegations made in the FIR or

complaint are so absurd and inherently

improbable on the basis of which no prudent

person can ever reach a just conclusion that there

is sufficient ground for proceeding against the

accused.

(6) Where there is an express legal bar engrafted

in any of the provisions of the Code or the

concerned Act (under whic h a criminal

proceeding is instituted) to the institution and

continuance of the proceedings and/or where

there is a specific provision in the Code or the

concerned Act, providing efficacious redress for

the grievance of the aggrieved party.

(7) Where a criminal proceeding is manifestly

attended with mala fide and/or where the

proceeding is maliciously instituted with an

ulterior motive for wreaking vengeance on the

accused and with a view to spite him due to

private and personal grudge.

7. The said position was reiterated by this Court in

Pepsi Foods Ltd. and Anr. v. Special Judicial

Magistrate and Ors.

2

This Court held therein that the

2

AIR 1998 SC 128; 1997 INSC 714

SLP (Crl.) No.4849 of 2020 Page 13 of 16

High Court could exercise its power of judicial review in

criminal matters and it could exercise this power either

under Article 226 of the Constitution or under Section

482, Cr. P.C. to prevent abuse of the process of the Court

or to secure the ends of justice. Furthermore, it was held

that exercise of that power would depend upon the facts

and circumstances of each case.

8. In regard to quashing of criminal proceedings at

the investigation stage itself, this Court in Eastern Spg.

Mills v. Rajiv Poddar

3

, held that the High Court could

interfere with the investigation, if non-interference

would result in miscarriage of justice.

9. In State of A.P. v. Golconda Linga Swamy

4

, this

Court again held that where an FIR did not disclose the

commission of an offence without anything being added

or subtracted from the recitals thereof, the said FIR could

be quashed.

10. We have already extracted the relevant recitals in

the subject FIR. Despite our microscopic examination of

the allegations raised thereunder, except some vague

allegations, no specific allegation could be seen made

against the appellant herein or against the company by

name ‘HEC India LLP’ wherein he was the Project

3

AIR 1985 SC 1668

4

(2004) 6 SCC 522; 2004 INSC 404

SLP (Crl.) No.4849 of 2020 Page 14 of 16

Manager. That apart, a scanning of the subject FIR would

reveal that after making some alle gations, the

complainant viz., the 4

th

respondent herein sought for

registration of a case against the persons named therein,

including the appellant herein to help the

complainant/appellant herein to recover the amount

mentioned therein. In this context, it is to be seen that

the allegations therein would reveal that the complaint of

committing default in payment of an amount around Rs.9

Crores was not made against the appellant herein or

against the company in which he was the Project

Manager, whereas it was made against a different

company/different companies.

11. In the contextual situation, it is also relevant to refer

to the decision of this Court in Mohammad Wajid and

Another. v. State of U.P. and Anr.

5

, whereunder this

Court, in so far as it is relevant, held thus: -

“34……...it will not be just enough for the Court to

look into the averments made in the FIR/complaint

alone for the purpose of ascertaining whether the

necessary ingredients to constitute the alleged

offence are disclosed or not. In frivolous or vexatious

proceedings, the Court owes a duty to look into many

5

2023 SCC Online SC 951; 2023 INSC 683

SLP (Crl.) No.4849 of 2020 Page 15 of 16

other attending circumstances emerging from the

record of the case over and above the averments

and, if need be, with due care and circumspection

try to read in between the lines. The Court while

exercising its jurisdiction under Section 482 of

the CrPC or Article 226 of the Constitution need not

restrict itself only to the stage of a case but is

empowered to take into account the overall

circumstances leading to the initiation/registration

of the case as well as the materials collected in the

course of investigation….”

12. On judging the case on hand with reference to the

allegations extracted hereinbefore, in the light of the

decisions referred supra, we have absolutely no

hesitation to hold that the High Court clearly erred in

refusing to exercise the extraordinary power under

Article 226 of the Constitution of India to quash the

subject FIR No.64/2020 and all further proceedings in

pursuance thereof, qua the appellant.

13. A perusal of the subject FIR would reveal that the

same did not disclose commission of offence(s) as

alleged without anything being added to the recitals

thereof. That apart, besides the vague allegations, the

rest of them, even if taken as true, would not disclose the

SLP (Crl.) No.4849 of 2020 Page 16 of 16

commission of any offence and make out a case against,

the appellant. In such circumstances, asking the

appellant to stand the trial will be nothing but an abuse

of process of law and as such, non-interference by

refusing to exercise the power to quash the FIR and

further proceedings based thereon, would result in

miscarriage of justice.

14. In such circumstances, this appeal is liable to be

allowed and resultantly it is allowed and the judgment

dated 26.08.2020 in Criminal Misc. Writ Petition No.8063

of 2020 is set aside. As a necessary sequel, the subject

FIR No.64/2020 registered at Police Station, Sadar Bazar,

District Meerut and all further proceedings pursuant

thereto, qua the appellant stand quashed and set aside.

15. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand dispose

of.

……………………, J.

(C.T. Ravikumar)

……………………, J.

(Sanjay Kumar)

New Delhi;

January 02, 2025.