Writ Jurisdiction Can Be Invoked To Quash Criminal Proceedings: Supreme Court Quashes FIR Against Foreign National
The Supreme Court quashed an FIR against a foreign national in an alleged misappropriation and fraud case while observing that writ jurisdiction can be invoked to quash criminal proceedings.
The Court set aside the Order of the Allahabad High Court refusing to quash an FIR against the Project Manager (Appellant) of Hyundai Engineering & Construction India LLP (HEC India LLP) under Sections 406, 420, 323, 504, 506 and 120-B of the IPC.
The Bench of Justice C.T. Ravikumar and Justice Sanjay Kumar held, “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.."
Senior Advocate M Shoeb Alam represented the Appellant, while AOR Vijendra Singh appeared for the Respondents.
An FIR was registered for committing default in payment of dues amounting to Rs. 9 crores to M/s R.T. Construction by the complainant, for providing labourers for a project subcontracted by M/s YSSS India Construction Pvt. Ltd. (YSSS). The FIR alleged criminal conspiracy, cheating, fraud, forgery and misappropriation against the Appellant.
The Court referred to its decision in State of A.P. v. Golconda Linga Swamy (2004), wherein it was 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.”
The Bench noted that the allegations in the FIR revealed that the complaint of committing default in payment of an amount around Rs.9 Crores was not made against the Appellant or against the company in which he was the Project Manager, whereas it was made against a different company/different companies.
In the contextual situation, the Court also referred to its decision in Mohammad Wajid v. State of U.P. whereunder it was held that “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 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.”
Consequently, the Court held, “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 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.”
Accordingly, the Supreme Court allowed the Appeal.
Cause Title: Kim Wansoo v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 8)
Appearance:
Appellant: Senior Advocate M Shoeb Alam; AOR Talha Abdul Rahman; Advocates M Shaz Khan, Prashant Kumar, Sudhanshu Tewari, Rafid Akhter and Faizan Ahmad
Respondents: AOR Vijendra Singh and Danish Zubair Khan; Advocates Kumar Abhinandan, Apurva Mahndiyan, Lokendra Malik and Mohd. Asad Khan
