Supreme Court of India· 02 January 2025

Under the Constitution of India, may a High Court quash an FIR in exercise of the extraordinary power under Article 226, or is quashing confined to the inherent power under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973?

Kim Wansoo v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors.

2025 INSC 8 · Criminal Appeal (@ SLP (Crl.) No.4849 of 2020)
Coram: C.T. Ravikumar; Sanjay Kumar

🔖 Save this judgment 🔔 Follow Art.226 Constitution of India 📬 Get today's judgments

View the original judgment PDFFree to read. To download it — or the LexStreak typeset copy with the headnote and Points of Law — create an account; downloads are part of the Pro plan.

Answer

Quashing is normally sought and done under the inherent power under Section 482, Cr.P.C., but that does not mean it cannot be done in invocation of the extraordinary power under Article 226. Either power may be exercised to prevent abuse of the process of any Court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice, and its exercise depends on the facts and circumstances of each case.

Headnote

Constitution of India — Art.226 — Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s.482 — Indian Penal Code, 1860 — ss.406, 420, 120-B — Quashing of FIR — Investigation stage — Vague allegations — Abuse of process of law — Constitution of India — Art.226 — Quashing of FIR not confined to s.482 — Held: Quashing of criminal proceedings is normally sought in exercise of the inherent power of the High Court under Section 482, Cr.P.C. That does not mean it cannot be done in invocation of the extraordinary power under Article 226 of the Constitution. (¶6) Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s.482 — Interference at the investigation stage — Held further: The High Court may interfere with an investigation where non-interference would result in miscarriage of justice, and may quash an FIR which discloses no offence without anything being added to or subtracted from its recitals. (¶8, 9) Constitution of India — Art.226 — Material beyond the averments in the FIR — Held further: The Court is not confined to the averments in the FIR when ascertaining whether the ingredients of the alleged offence are disclosed. It owes a duty to look into the other attending circumstances emerging from the record and to read in between the lines. (¶11) Indian Penal Code, 1860 — ss.406, 420, 120-B — Vague allegations — Abuse of process — Held further: Where, besides vague allegations, the recitals even if taken as true disclose no offence against an accused, asking him to stand the trial is an abuse of process of law. FIR and further proceedings quashed qua the appellant; appeal allowed. (¶13, 14)

In the Court's own words

Paragraph 6It is worthwhile to refer to some of the decisions of this Court in regard to the power of the High Court to quash criminal proceedings before considering the rival contentions with reference to the allegations made in the subject FIR, as extracted above. 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 invocation of the extraordinary power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. This position was made clear by this Court in State of Haryana and Ors. v. Bhajan Lal and Ors.[^1]. After considering the statutory provisions of Cr. P.C. and the earlier decisions of this Court, in the said decision this Court held that in the following categories of cases, 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 otherwise to secure the ends of justice. This Court went on to observe and hold that it might not be possible to lay down any precise, clearly defined and sufficiently channelised and inflexible guidelines or rigid formula and exhaustive list of myriad kinds of cases wherein such power should be exercised and encapsulate the following cases falling under such categories: -

Paragraph 7The said position was reiterated by this Court in Pepsi Foods Ltd. and Anr. v. Special Judicial Magistrate and Ors.[^2] This Court held therein 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.

Acts & Sections

Art.226 Constitution of Indias.482 Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973s.406 Indian Penal Code, 1860s.420 Indian Penal Code, 1860s.120-B Indian Penal Code, 1860s.91 Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973s.173(2) Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973

One judgment a day. That's the whole habit.

Read the full text of Kim Wansoo v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors. — and get the Supreme Court's output as a five-minute daily read, with plain-language headnotes and the questions each judgment settles.

Create my free account

Free forever plan · 30 seconds · data stays in India

Open the full judgment →

Also decided in this judgment

In what categories of cases may a High Court exercise the power under Article 226 of the Constitution or Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 to quash criminal proceedings?May a High Court interfere with a criminal investigation before the police report is submitted under Section 173(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973?When may an FIR itself be quashed on the ground that it discloses no offence?When deciding a petition to quash under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 or Article 226 of the Constitution, is the Court confined to the averments made in the FIR or complaint?What is the significance, for quashing under Article 226 of the Constitution, of an FIR whose own recitals ask the police to help the complainant recover an amount?When does requiring an accused to stand trial on such an FIR amount to an abuse of process of law?

Plain-language answer prepared by the LexStreak Editorial Desk — verify against the judgment. Source: Supreme Court of India. Corrections