Kim Wansoo vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors., 2025

• The appellant, a foreign national and Project Manager at Hyundai Engineering & Construction India LLP (HEC India LLP), was named in an FIR that alleged cheating, fraud, and criminal conspiracy related to payment defaults of ₹9 crores.
• The complainant, a subcontractor, claimed that dishonored cheques and non-payment of dues led to financial harm and personal consequences, including the death of the complainant's brother.
• The Allahabad High Court had earlier refused to quash the FIR against the appellant under its writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution.
• The appellant challenged the High Court's refusal in the Supreme Court, seeking to quash the criminal case.

1. Whether the High Court could exercise its power under Article 226 of the Constitution to quash the criminal case, even when it had previously declined to do so?
2. Whether the FIR disclosed any cognizable offence against the appellant and if its continuation would amount to an abuse of the process of law?

The Supreme Court, affirming the decision of the High Court, held that:

• The Supreme Court allowed the appeal and set aside the Allahabad High Court’s decision.
• The Court observed that the High Court had erred by refusing to exercise its extraordinary writ jurisdiction under Article 226 to quash the FIR.
• The Court referred to the judgment in State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal (1992) and Pepsi Foods Ltd. v. Special Judicial Magistrate (1998), reinforcing that the High Court can quash criminal proceedings either under Article 226 or Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. to prevent abuse of process or to secure the ends of justice.
• Upon reviewing the FIR, the Court noted that it did not disclose the commission of any offence against the appellant. The vague allegations in the FIR did not substantiate the claims made by the complainant. The Court concluded that the continuation of the criminal proceedings would be an abuse of the judicial process and could result in a miscarriage of justice.
• As a result, the Court quashed the criminal case against the appellant.

The judgement clarified the applicability of following provisions:

• This judgment reinforces the power of the High Court to quash criminal proceedings under both Article 226 and Section 482 of the Cr.P.C., thus expanding the scope of judicial review in criminal matters. It emphasizes that courts must prevent the misuse of the judicial process in frivolous or baseless cases.
• The ruling protects the rights of the accused from unnecessary legal harassment, ensuring that no person should be forced to undergo a trial based on unfounded or vague allegations. It also reaffirms the constitutional right to a fair trial.
• The decision highlights the need to safeguard against frivolous litigations that waste judicial resources and harm the reputation and livelihood of individuals. By ensuring that criminal proceedings are only allowed when there is a genuine case, the Court upholds justice and fairness within the legal system.