Abhishek Singh v. Ajay Kumar & Ors., 2025
The Supreme Court revives criminal proceedings against bank officials, ruling premature quashing of FIR by High Court improper in alleged misappropriation of pledged gold.
Judgement Details
Court
Supreme Court of India
Date of Decision
11 June 2025
Judges
Justice Sanjay Karol ⦁ Justice Manoj Misra
Citation
Acts / Provisions
Facts of the Case
-
The Appellant, Abhishek Singh, took a loan of ₹7,70,000 from the Bank of India, Motijhil Branch, pledging 254 grams of 22-carat gold ornaments.
-
Upon delayed repayment, the bank conducted a second valuation of the gold and refused to return the pledged articles.
-
The bank claimed the gold was counterfeit, lodged an FIR against the appellant under Sections 420 and 379 IPC.
-
In retaliation, the Appellant filed an FIR against the Branch Manager and Credit Manager, alleging misappropriation and breach of trust under Sections 420, 406, and 34 IPC.
-
The Patna High Court quashed the FIR filed by the appellant against bank officials, prompting an appeal to the Supreme Court.
Issues
-
Whether the Patna High Court was justified in quashing the FIR at the pre-trial stage.
-
Whether fraud or misappropriation by bank officials can be determined without evidence or trial.
-
Can the bank’s second valuation and subsequent actions be presumed bona fide without independent verification?
Judgement
-
The Supreme Court set aside the Patna High Court judgment, ruling that the quashing of the FIR was premature.
-
Held that issues of fraud or misappropriation require evidence, which can only be determined at trial stage, not at the FIR stage.
-
Found the High Court’s conclusions speculative and unjustified, as intent and malafides are questions of fact.
-
The Criminal proceedings were revived, and FIR against bank officials was reinstated.
Held
-
The Prima facie case exists as per FIR, and therefore, quashing under Section 482 CrPC was improper.
-
The Intent or malice cannot be presumed; it must be proven through trial and appreciation of evidence.
-
The High Court exceeded its jurisdiction by making factual findings without trial.
-
The gold was always in bank custody; hence, any fraud or substitution during revaluation is a factual matter.
-
Even though the loan account was NPA, the bank did not legally follow auction procedures, raising further doubts.
Analysis
-
The judgment reaffirms the principle of non-interference at the FIR stage when a prima facie case is made out.
-
The Supreme Court cautioned against drawing conclusions on mens rea (intention) or malafide without a full trial process.
-
It also underscored the importance of independent verification when replacing a valuer or altering asset classification.
-
The Court maintained that even if a bank follows internal policy, its actions are still subject to judicial scrutiny if criminality is alleged.
-
The loan repayment and procedural lapses by the bank, such as not initiating formal auction proceedings, further complicated the case, justifying judicial intervention.