1. Case Details
- Case Name: Abhishek Singh vs. Ajay Kumar & Ors.
- Case Number: Criminal Appeal No. __ of 2025 (Arising out of SLP(Crl.) No. 480/2025)
- Citation: 2025 INSC 807
- Court: Supreme Court of India
- Bench: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sanjay Karol, Hon’ble Mr. Justice Manoj Misra
- Date of Judgment: June 5, 2025
2. Subject Matter
The appeal challenges the High Court of Patna’s judgment which quashed an FIR filed by the appellant (complainant) against the respondents (bank officials) for offences under Sections 420, 406, and 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.
3. Brief Facts
- Appellant’s Version: The appellant took a gold loan from the Bank of India. He claims to have repaid the entire loan amount, but the bank officials did not return his pledged gold. Instead, they revalued it behind his back and alleged it was counterfeit. He filed an FIR against the bank officials for misappropriation.
- Respondents’ (Bank’s) Version: The appellant defaulted on the loan. To realize the dues, the gold was revalued and found to be counterfeit. The bank had already filed an FIR against the appellant for cheating. They claim the appellant’s FIR is a malicious “counterblast”.
4. Lower Court’s Decision (High Court of Patna)
- The High Court quashed the FIR filed by the appellant.
- It reasoned that the FIR was a “mere counterblast,” filed with malicious and ulterior motives.
- It held that even on face value, no offence was made out and that continuing proceedings would be an abuse of the process of the court.
5. Key Legal Principles Discussed by the Supreme Court
- Scope of Section 482 Cr.P.C.: The power to quash an FIR should be used sparingly. The High Court cannot conduct a “mini-trial” or delve into the merits of the allegations. It must only see if a prima facie case is made out from the FIR.
- Consideration of Defence Material: At the stage of quashing an FIR, evidence produced by the accused in their defence cannot be looked into, except in very exceptional circumstances.
6. Supreme Court’s Reasoning
- The High Court erred by conducting a detailed examination of the facts and the respondents’ defence, which amounts to a “mini-trial.”
- The High Court improperly made findings on the appellant’s “ill intention” and “ulterior motive,” which are matters to be determined during a trial based on evidence.
- The possibility of misappropriation of the gold while in the bank’s custody cannot be ruled out at this stage and requires investigation and trial.
- A prima facie case for the commission of an offence as alleged in the FIR is made out from its perusal.
7. Final Order
- The appeal is allowed.
- The judgment of the High Court is set aside.
- The criminal proceedings initiated by the appellant via the FIR are revived and restored to the file of the concerned court for trial.