LexKIM WANSOO versus STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH & ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2025] 1 S.C.R. 1 : 2025 INSC 8 Kim Wansoo v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors. (Criminal Appeal No. 15 of 2025) 02 January 2025 [C.T. Ravikumar* and Sanjay Kumar, JJ.] Issue for Consideration Issue arose as regards invocation of extraordinary power u/Art. 226 of the Constitution to quash criminal proceedings. Headnotes† Constitution of India – Art.226 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – s.482 – Quashing of criminal proceedings – Invocation of extraordinary power u/Art.226 – FIR registered u/ss.406, 420, 323, 504, 506 and 120-B IPC against the accused, including the appellant-foreign national and Project Manager for defaulting in payment to the company – Appellant sought quashing of FIR – However, the High Court refused to quash FIR – Correctness: Held: Normally, quashing of criminal proceedings would be sought and would be done in exercise of the inherent power of the High Court u/s. 482 – But that does not mean that it could not be done only in invocation of the extraordinary power u/ Art. 226 – Extraordinary power u/Art. 226 or the inherent power u/s. 482 could be exercised by the High Court, either to prevent abuse of process of any Court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice – On facts, the High Court erred in refusing to exercise the extraordinary power u/Art. 226 to quash the FIR and all further proceedings in pursuance thereof, qua the appellant – Perusal of the FIR would reveal that the same did not disclose commission of offence as alleged without anything being added to the recitals thereof – Besides the vague allegations, the rest of them, even if taken as true, would not disclose the commission of any offence and make out a case against, the appellant – In such circumstances, asking the appellant to stand the trial would be nothing but an abuse of process of law and as such, * Author 2 [2025] 1 S.C.R. Digital Supreme Court Reports non-interference by refusing to exercise the power to quash the FIR and further proceedings based thereon, would result in miscarriage of justice – Judgment passed by the High Court set aside – FIR and all further proceedings pursuant thereto, qua the appellant quashed and set aside. [Paras 6, 10, 12-14] Case Law Cited State of Haryana and Ors. v. Bhajan Lal and Ors. 1990 INSC 363 : [1990] Supp. 3 SCR 259 : AIR 1992 SC 604; Pepsi Foods Ltd. and Anr. v. Special Judicial Magistrate and Ors. 1997 INSC 714 : [1997] Supp. 5 SCR 12 : AIR 1998 SC 128; Eastern Spg. Mills v. Rajiv Poddar, AIR 1985 SC 1668; State of A.P. v. Golconda Linga Swamy 2004 INSC 404 : [2004] Supp. 3 SCR 147 : (2004) 6 SCC 522; Mohammad Wajid and Another. v. State of U.P. and Anr., 2023 INSC 683: [2023] 11 SCR 313 : 2023 SCC Online SC 951 – referred to. List of Acts Constitution of India; Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Penal Code, 1860. List of Keywords Invocation of extraordinary power u/Art. 226; Quashing of criminal proceedings; Foreign national; Default in payment; Quashing of FIR; Inherent power of the High Court u/s. 482 CrPC; Extraordinary power u/Art. 226; Abuse of process; Vague allegations; Project Manager; Miscarriage of justice. Case Arising From CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal No. 15 of 2025 From the Judgment and Order dated 26.08.2020 of the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad in CRLMWP No. 8063 of 2020 Appearances for Parties M. Shoeb Alam, Sr. Adv., Talha Abdul Rahman, M. Shaz Khan, Adnan Yousuf, Advs. for the Appellant. Pallav Shishodia, Sr. Adv., Divyesh Pratap Singh, Rajat Singh, Andleeb Naqvi, Sarthak Chandra, Arun Pratap Singh Rajawat, Danish Zubair Khan, Dr. Lokendra Malik, Advs. for the Respondents. [2025] 1 S.C.R. 3 Kim Wansoo v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors. Judgment / Order of the Supreme Court 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 invest
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.