LegalFirms.in
LegalFirms.in Judgments · legalfirms.in/judgments/kim-wansoo-vs-state-of-uttar-pradesh-ors-20250102/ · Printed 07 Nov 2026
Criminal · Reportable judgment

Kim Wansoo vs State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors.

Court
Supreme Court of India
Date
2 January 2025
Case No.
Criminal Appeal No. 15 of 2025
Result
Allowed
Bench
C.T. Ravikumar, Sanjay Karol
Citation
[2025] 1 S.C.R. 1 : 2025 INSC 8
Acts & Sections
Constitution CrPC IPC
Supreme Court Reports [2025] 1 S.C.R. 1 : 2025 INSC 8
Issue for consideration
Issue arose as regards invocation of extraordinary power u/Art.

226 of the Constitution to quash criminal proceedings.
Headnote

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, 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]

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

As published in the Supreme Court Reports, Supreme Court of India. Headnotes prepared by: Nidhi Jain. Text from the Indian Supreme Court Judgments open data set (Dattam Labs), CC BY 4.0.

Full Judgment Text

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 petitio
Full text available to subscribers
Subscribe to access complete judgment text, daily digests, and AI-powered legal research tools. For informational and research purposes only.
View Subscription Plans →
Annual plans from ₹1,599 + GST.

This page is for informational and research purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Consult a qualified advocate for advice specific to your situation.

All SC judgments →