A) ABSTRACT / HEADNOTE

Kim Wansoo v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors., Criminal Appeal No. 15 of 2025 (2 Jan. 2025) considers whether the High Court should have exercised its extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to quash an FIR registered under Sections 406, 420, 323, 504, 506 and 120-B IPC against a foreign national who served as Project Manager of a contractor. The dispute arose from alleged non-payment by a chain of contractors/sub-contractors for manpower services amounting to about Rs. 9 crores; the complainant pleaded cheating and conspiracy after cheques were dishonoured and after one associated person’s death.

The Supreme Court reaffirmed that quashing of criminal proceedings is ordinarily exercised under Section 482, Cr.P.C., but emphasised that the High Court may equally invoke Article 226 to prevent abuse of process or secure ends of justice, following the categories enumerated in State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal and subsequent precedents. On an evaluative reading of the FIR, the Court found that the allegations against the appellant were vague, did not disclose offences against him without addition to the recitals, and essentially sought criminal process as a vehicle for civil/money recovery. Relying on earlier authorities including Pepsi Foods Ltd., Eastern Spg. Mills, Golconda Linga Swamy, and Mohammad Wajid, the Court held that permitting trial would amount to abuse of process and miscarriage of justice. Consequently the FIR insofar as it named the appellant was quashed. Keywords: Article 226, Section 482 CrPC, quashing FIR, abuse of process, vague allegations.

Keywords: Article 226, Section 482 CrPC, quashing of FIR, abuse of process, vague allegations, cheating, conspiracy.

B) CASE DETAILS

C) INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND OF JUDGEMENT

The dispute originated from a multilayer contractual chain for RCC construction at an HMIL project. HEC India LLP was the main contractor; the appellant, Mr. Kim Wansoo, was its Project Manager and a foreign national. The primary subcontracting path ran from HEC India LLP to KOTEC, thence to YSSS, and finally to the complainant’s firm R.T. Construction for labour supply. The complainant alleged supply of labour between Aug 2018–2019 and bills totalling about Rs. 9 crore, payments of only ~Rs.1.70 crore being made and multiple cheques for the balance being dishonoured.

A reconciliation was alleged with promises of payment and issuance of cheques; subsequent dishonour and failure to pay led to complaints of cheating, conspiracy and related offences. The complainant also claimed mistreatment and threats during visits to the contractor’s office and alleged that trauma following violent conduct led to the death of one associated person. FIR No. 64/2020 captured these allegations and named various individuals including the appellant.

The appellant, who produced some documents to investigators but claimed many sought were not in his control, sought quashing of the FIR before the High Court which declined full relief but directed protection from arrest till certain stages. The appeal to this Court raised the central procedural-substantive question whether the High Court should have invoked Article 226 to quash criminal proceedings that, on the material, did not disclose a case against the appellant and would lead to abuse of process and miscarriage of justice.

D) FACTS OF THE CASE

Hyundai Motor India Limited awarded work to HEC India LLP by agreement dated 20.10.2017. The appellant was the Project Manager of HEC India LLP and a foreign national. HEC India LLP subcontracted to KOTEC, which subcontracted RC works to YSSS, who in turn engaged R.T. Construction (complainant) for manpower. R.T. Construction alleged provision of labour from Aug 2018 to 2019 and billing of approximately Rs. 9 crore. Payments totalling Rs. 1,70,51,000 were admitted; the balance claimed was ~Rs. 8.31 crore with cheques issued and dishonoured.

A reconciliation allegedly recorded an obligation of Rs. 7,67,30,826 and part-payment cheques were exchanged  one encashed, another of Rs.2,45,53,864 dishonoured. Repeated demands allegedly met with excuses, misbehaviour, threats and an assault that—according to the complainant led to trauma and subsequently the death of the complainant’s brother on 30.01.2020.

The FIR accused multiple persons under ss.406, 420, 323, 504, 506, 120-B IPC for conspiracy, cheating and misappropriation. Notices under s.91 Cr.P.C. sought documents from the appellant; he produced some but claimed others were not in his possession. The High Court refused complete quash but restrained arrest initially; the appellant appealed to the Supreme Court, which granted leave and stayed proceedings.

E) LEGAL ISSUES RAISED 

i. Whether the High Court should have exercised its extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 to quash the FIR against the appellant rather than remit the matter to investigation/trial?
ii. Whether the recitals of FIR No.64/2020, taken at face value, disclosed prima facie offences against the appellant under Sections 406, 420, 323, 504, 506, 120-B IPC?
iii. Whether allowing criminal proceedings to proceed would amount to abuse of process and cause miscarriage of justice where allegations are vague or target civil remedy by criminal process?
iv. To what extent may a court look beyond the four corners of the FIR at the investigation stage when moving to quash proceedings under Article 226/Section 482 Cr.P.C.?

F) PETITIONER / APPELLANT’S ARGUMENTS

i. The appellant submitted that the FIR does not disclose any specific offence by him; the allegations refer primarily to other companies and the appellant’s role as Project Manager does not attract criminal liability for alleged commercial defaults.
ii. He argued that many documents sought by the police were not within his control and that notices under s.91 Cr.P.C. were being misused to harass him.
iii. Counsel emphasized that the dispute was essentially civil in nature recovery of money and that initiation of criminal process against the foreign national would be unfair and oppressive.
iv. The appellant relied on precedents permitting quashing where the FIR, without addition, does not disclose an offence and where continuing proceedings would be an abuse of process.

G) RESPONDENT’S ARGUMENTS

i. The State/respondents contended that the FIR contained sufficient allegations of conspiracy and cheating, cheques having been dishonoured, threats and assault; investigation must be permitted to ascertain complicity.
ii. It was argued that the multiplicity of entities and the appellant’s managerial position could place him within the conspiracy or aiding framework, necessitating probe.
iii. The respondents relied on the principle that quashing is an extraordinary remedy and ordinarily courts should refrain from interfering at the investigation stage.

H) RELATED LEGAL PROVISIONS 

i. Article 226, Constitution of India — extraordinary writ jurisdiction of High Courts.
ii. Section 482, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — inherent power to preserve justice and prevent abuse of process.
iii. Section 156(1), Cr.P.C. — police power to investigate cognizable offences.
iv. Section 91, Cr.P.C. — power to compel production of documents and witnesses.
v. Sections 406, 420, 323, 504, 506, 120-B, Indian Penal Code — offences of breach of trust, cheating, hurt, intentional insult/threats, criminal intimidation, and criminal conspiracy.

I) JUDGEMENT 

The Court allowed the appeal and quashed FIR No.64/2020 insofar as it related to the appellant. The judgment first affirmed the settled principle that quashing of criminal proceedings is ordinarily sought under Section 482, Cr.P.C., but the High Court’s Article 226 jurisdiction is coextensive for preventing abuse of process or securing justice, as elucidated in State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal and applied in Pepsi Foods Ltd., Eastern Spg. Mills and Golconda Linga Swamy.

Examining the FIR, the Court observed that the primary allegations of default and cheque dishonour were aimed at different corporate entities and that no specific, particularised averment implicated the appellant personally; the appellant was named only as Project Manager of HEC India LLP without factual foundation linking him to the alleged misappropriation or conspiracy.

The Court relied on Mohammad Wajid to hold that in frivolous or vexatious proceedings a court may consider surrounding circumstances and investigation materials beyond the FIR to prevent miscarriage of justice. Concluding that the FIR, even on face value, did not disclose offences against the appellant, and that permitting proceedings to proceed would be an abuse of process and a source of grave hardship (especially considering appellant’s foreign status), the Court held non-interference by refusing quash would result in miscarriage of justice. The High Court order refusing complete quash was set aside and the FIR and all consequential proceedings against the appellant were quashed and set aside.

a. RATIO DECIDENDI

The dispositive legal principle is that where an FIR’s recitals without amplification do not prima facie disclose an offence against an accused, or where allegations are vague and the proceedings amount to an attempt to use criminal machinery for civil recovery, a court (High Court or Supreme Court) may invoke Article 226 or Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash proceedings to prevent abuse of process and avert miscarriage of justice. The Court applied the Bhajan Lal categories, and followed Golconda Linga Swamy and Mohammad Wajid to justify a deeper scrutiny when the proceedings are shown to be vexatious or unsupported by material connecting the accused to the alleged crime. The ratio emphasises substance over form: naming a managerial officer without specific allegations tying him to criminal conduct is insufficient to sustain criminal prosecution.

b. OBITER DICTA 

The Court observed obiter that courts may, with due care and circumspection, look beyond mere averments in an FIR when circumstances suggest frivolity or ulterior motive; judicial restraint should be balanced against the duty to prevent harassment by criminal process. It further noted that Article 226 and Section 482 are complementary remedies and that the choice between them depends on facts and remedy sought; no rigid rule mandates exclusive invocation of Section 482. The Court reiterated that criminal law cannot be used as a substitute for civil remedies for recovery of money.

c. GUIDELINES

i. High Courts may exercise either Article 226 or Section 482 to quash proceedings when allegations, accepted at face value, do not prima facie constitute an offence.
ii. Where allegations are vague, non-specific, or target corporate entities without linking a named individual, courts should guard against subjecting such persons to criminal trial absent material showing complicity.
iii. If criminal proceedings are a clear attempt to secure civil redress, quashing is appropriate to prevent abuse.
iv. Courts may examine limited investigation materials and surrounding circumstances with circumspection where frivolity, mala fides or vexatious litigation is evident, as long as care is taken to avoid pre-empting legitimate investigations.
v. Protective orders (e.g., stay on arrest) may be tailored if the court declines to quash at initial stage; however where no prima facie case exists, full quashment is justified.

J) CONCLUSION & COMMENTS

The decision reinforces the protective role of constitutional and inherent jurisdiction against misuse of criminal process, particularly where corporate contracting chains create diffuse blame and complainants seek criminal sanction for monetary claims. The Court’s approach rightly focuses on the necessity of specificity in allegations against individuals and resists mechanically allowing wide-ranging criminal probes where nexus between accused and alleged offence is absent.

For practitioners, the judgment underscores careful drafting of FIRs, the need to demonstrate mens rea and participation for conspiracy/cheating charges, and the availability of judicial remedies against vexatious prosecutions. The ruling also clarifies procedural posture: invocation of Article 226 remains a legitimate route for quash petitions and courts must apply Bhajan Lal categories in a fact-sensitive manner, balancing investigatory freedom with protection from abuse.

Finally, the judgment signals judicial sensitivity to the hardships of foreign nationals and managerial personnel who are nominally linked to corporate operations but not demonstrably culpable in alleged offences.

J) REFERENCES

a. Important Cases Referred

i. State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, (1990) Supp. 3 S.C.R. 259 (India).
ii. Pepsi Foods Ltd. & Anr. v. Special Judicial Magistrate & Ors., (1997) Supp. 5 S.C.R. 12 (India).
iii. Eastern Spinning Mills v. Rajiv Poddar, AIR 1985 SC 1668 (India).
iv. State of A.P. v. Golconda Linga Swamy, (2004) 6 SCC 522; [2004] Supp. 3 S.C.R. 147 (India).
v. Mohammad Wajid & Anr. v. State of U.P. & Anr., 2023 INSC 683; [2023] 11 S.C.R. 313.
vi. Joginder Kumar v. State of U.P., 1994 Cr.L.J. 1981 (as cited in High Court order).
vii. Kim Wansoo v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors., Criminal Appeal No.15 of 2025, [2025] 1 S.C.R. 1 ; 2025 INSC 8.

b. Important Statutes Referred

i. Constitution of India, Article 226.
ii. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, Section 482; Section 156(1); Section 91; Section 173.
iii. Indian Penal Code, 1860, Sections 406, 420, 323, 504, 506, 120-B.