High Courts Can Quash Criminal Proceedings Invoking Article 226 Jurisdiction Also Apart From S.482 CrPC Power : Supreme Court

The Supreme Court observed that apart from exercising its power to quash a criminal case under Section 482 Cr.P.C., the High Court can also exercise powers under Article 226 of the Constitution to quash the criminal case to prevent misuse of the law.

“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 an invocation of the extraordinary power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.”, the court said.

The bench comprising Justices CT Ravikumar and Sanjay Kumar was hearing the criminal appeal filed against the Allahabad High Court's decision that refused to quash the criminal case against the Appellants in the exercise of its Writ Jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution.

The appellant, a foreign national and Project Manager of Hyundai Engineering & Construction India LLP (HEC India LLP), was implicated in the FIR. The FIR alleged cheating, fraud, and criminal conspiracy concerning payment defaults totaling ₹9 crores.

The chain of contracts included multiple subcontractors, and the complainant alleged that dishonored cheques and non-payment led to financial and personal harm, including the death of his brother.

Setting aside the High Court's decision, the judgment authored by Justice Ravikumar observed that the High Court erred in refusing to exercise the extraordinary power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to quash the subject FIR against the Appellants.

The Court referred to the case of State of Haryana and Ors. v. Bhajan Lal and Ors. (1992), which held that 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 process of any Court or to secure the ends of justice.

Also, the case of Pepsi Foods Ltd. and Anr v. Special Judicial Magistrate and Ors. (1998) supported the Court's observation, where it was held that “the 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.”

Since the FIR did not disclose the commission of an offence as alleged against the Appellant, applying the law laid down in Bhajan Lal's case, the Court quashed the pending criminal case against the Appellant.

“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.”, the Court observed.

Accordingly, the Appeal was allowed.

Appearance:

For Petitioner(s) Mr. M. Shoeb Alam, Sr. Adv. Mr. Talha Abdul Rahman, AOR Mr. M. Shaz Khan, Adv. Mr. Adnan Yousuf, Adv.

For Respondent(s) Mr. Divyesh Pratap Singh, Adv. Mr. Rajat Singh, AOR Mr. Andleeb Naqvi, Adv. Mr. Sarthak Chandra, Adv. Mr. Arun Pratap Singh Rajawat, Adv. Mr. Pallav Shishodia, Sr. Adv. Mr. Danish Zubair Khan, AOR Dr. Lokendra Malik, Adv.

Case Title: Kim Wansoo Versus State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors.

Citation : 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 7

Click here to read/download the judgment