Supreme Court of India
Kim Wansoo vs State Of Uttar Pradesh on 2 January, 2025
Author: C.T. Ravikumar
Bench: C.T. Ravikumar
2025 INSC 8
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)
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
Signature Not Verified
FIR, the provisions of Section 157, Cr. P.C. and the
Digitally signed by Dr.
Naveen Rawal
Date: 2025.01.02
view taken by the Apex Court in the case of Joginder
16:40:41 IST
Reason:
SLP (Crl.) No.4849 of 2020 Page 1 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 RCSLP (Crl.) No.4849 of 2020 Page 2 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 seekingSLP (Crl.) No.4849 of 2020 Page 3 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 hasSLP (Crl.) No.4849 of 2020 Page 4 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 5 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 6 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 company
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 7 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 against
aforementioned persons under aforementioned
SLP (Crl.) No.4849 of 2020 Page 8 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 9 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 10 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 11 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 which 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 12 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 Poddar3, 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 13 of 16
Manager. That apart, a scanning of the subject FIR would
reveal that after making some allegations, the
complainant viz., the 4th 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 many5
2023 SCC Online SC 951; 2023 INSC 683SLP (Crl.) No.4849 of 2020 Page 14 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 15 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.
SLP (Crl.) No.4849 of 2020 Page 16 of 16