Full Judgment Text
2025 INSC 807
NON-REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. OF 2025
(Arising out of SLP(Crl.) No.480/2025)
ABHISHEK SINGH … APPELLANT(S)
Versus
AJAY KUMAR & ORS. … RESPONDENT(S)
J U D G M E N T
SANJAY KAROL, J.
Leave Granted.
2. The appellant, Abhishek Singh, is the complainant and
Signature Not Verified
Digitally signed by
NAVEEN D
Date: 2025.06.06
16:09:11 IST
Reason:
has approached this Court aggrieved by the judgment and order
Crl.A@ SLP(Crl) No. 480/2025 Page 1 of 11
th
dated 12 November, 2024, passed by the High Court of
Judicature at Patna in Criminal Miscellaneous No.67884 of
2023, whereby the respondents’ application under Section 482
1
of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 was allowed and the
th
First Information Report dated 7 September 2023 filed by him
under Sections 420, 406 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code,
2
1860 , being Mithanpura P.S. Case No.393 of 2023, was
quashed.
3. The brief facts that gave rise to this appeal, as set out by
the Courts below, are that the appellant, being a businessman by
vocation, was in need of certain funds which he secured by way
of a loan from the Bank of India, Motijhil Branch. Having
pledged 254 grams of 22 carat gold ornaments by way of
nd
security, a loan of ₹ 7,70,000 was made in his favour, on 22
July, 2020. The dispute arises when it comes to the repayment
of this loan. According to the appellant, upon receipt of notice
th
dated 7 October, 2022 from the bank asking him to pay a sum
of ₹ 8,01,383.59, which included interest, he repaid the same as
st
on 31 March, 2023. Unbeknownst to him, the bank conducted
a revaluation of the gold pledged by him and, to that end,
deducted ₹ 1500 towards fees. His applications for returning the
pledged gold fell on deaf years. On the other hand, according to
1
Cr.P.C.
2
IPC
Crl.A@ SLP(Crl) No. 480/2025 Page 2 of 11
the bank, he did not pay the loan, because of which the gold
became an asset of the bank. In order to realise the money
involved in the transaction, the said gold was revalued and
found to be counterfeit when it was allegedly reported by a
valuer, different from the one who had originally valued the
appellant’s gold when the loan was made, that the material
pledged was not gold in actuality but gold plated on top of other
metals. One FIR was registered under sections 420 and 379 IPC
nd
against the appellant on 22 May, 2023. Another FIR, subject
matter of this appeal, was registered subsequently after an
application was made by the appellant to the competent
authority under Section 156(3) of the Cr.P.C. Respondent No.1,
the Accused therein, was the Branch and Credit Manager at the
time of the revaluation of the appellant's gold.
4. Having completed its investigation into the appellant’s
allegations, the investigating authorities filed a chargesheet
st
before the Judicial Magistrate, 1 Class (East) Mithanpura,
having the particulars as Final Report/Chargesheet No.371/24,
th
dated 30 September, 2024. While the investigation was still
underway, the respondents filed an application seeking quashing
th
of the FIR on 5 October, 2023. It is in this application that the
impugned judgment came to be passed.
5. The High Court, having perused the material on record,
came to the following conclusions :
Crl.A@ SLP(Crl) No. 480/2025 Page 3 of 11
a) this FIR is “a mere counterblast” to the FIR lodged by the
bank;
b) the same has been lodged with the intention of causing
wrongful loss to the bank and wrongful gain to himself;
c) to this end, the respondent before the High Court, the
appellant herein, had obtained a loan from the bank for
pledging spurious gold ornaments;
d) the institution of the FIR was “with an ulterior motive
and also as an afterthought”;
e) even if the contents of the complaint are taken at face
value, no offence is made out.
f) The Court relied upon paragraphs 29 to 31 of Priyanka
3
Srivastava v. State of UP to hold that since the appellant
had not affixed any affidavit as mandated by this
judgment, the FIR was unsustainable;
g) Continuation of criminal proceedings against the
respondents herein would amount to an abuse of process
of the Court, given that the complaint made by the
appellant herein was “malicious”.
6. In that view of the matter, the FIR was quashed, and the
appellant carried the matter to this Court.
3
(2015) 6 SCC 287
Crl.A@ SLP(Crl) No. 480/2025 Page 4 of 11
7. We have heard the learned Senior counsel appearing for
the parties and have gone through the record in detail. It is
sought to be contended by the appellant, inter alia , that :
st
a) the High Court failed to appreciate that as on 31
March, 2023, there was no outstanding loan, against
which the process of recovery could have been
initiated;
b) in the impugned judgment, reliance was placed on
documents other than the FIR/complaint which would
be outside its scope. Other documents, which may be
of the nature of defence of the party against whom
allegations have been made in the FIR, cannot be
looked into;
c) the revaluation of the appellant’s pledged gold was
done behind his back and contrary to the terms of the
loan agreement. The possibility of tampering with or
replacing the ornaments with those of questionable
quality cannot be ruled out;
d) the complaint made under section 156 (3) Cr.P.C. dated
th
24 May, 2023 did have an affidavit attached to it, and
therefore, the findings made in Paras 33 to 35, are
erroneous;
Crl.A@ SLP(Crl) No. 480/2025 Page 5 of 11
st
e) the non-lodging of FIR against the 1 valuer, which,
according to the respondents, was entirely incorrect,
raises suspicion;
f) the charge on the appellant’s account without consent
or prior notice amounts to fraud and cheating.
Per contra, the respondents canvassed, amongst others,
the following aspects :
a) the gold loan account of the appellant had been
st
declared a non-performing asset firstly on 1 of May,
2021 but then upon payment, the same was again
upgraded to standard. Subsequent non-payment led to
th
its declaration as an NPA once again on 30 April,
2022.
b) The amount deposited by the appellant on issuance of a
recall notice was not sufficient for the account to be
upgraded again and, as such, the gold pledged by the
appellant was revalued.
st
c) Upon finding that the 1 gold valuer had possibly
committed fraud, his de-empanelment was made.
d) At the time of granting of loan to the appellant the
respondents herein were not posted at the relevant
location but were only present at the time of
revaluation.
Crl.A@ SLP(Crl) No. 480/2025 Page 6 of 11
e) The appellant deliberately allowed the loan to become
an NPA, since he knew that the ornaments alleged were
fake.
st th
f) In the 1 recall notice dated 30 July, 2022 issued to
the appellant, it had been clearly stated that if he failed
to deposit the dues within 15 days, the bank would take
steps to auction the gold jewellery. The appellant did
not respond. This shows the clear intention on the part
of the appellant to cheat.
8. We have given our consideration to the multifarious
arguments advanced at the bar.
9. The scope of the Court’s power to quash and set aside
proceedings is well-settled to warrant any restatement. While
the arguments advanced have the potential to raise many issues
for consideration, we must first satisfy ourselves as to the
propriety of the exercise of such power by the High Court. The
task of the High Court, when called upon to adjudicate an
application seeking to quash the proceedings, is to see whether,
prima facie , an offence is made out or not. It is not to examine
whether the charges may hold up in the Court. In doing so, the
area of action is circumscribed. In Rajeev Kourav v.
4
Baisahab , it was held :
4
(2020) 3 SCC 317
Crl.A@ SLP(Crl) No. 480/2025 Page 7 of 11
“8. It is no more res integra that exercise of power
under Section 482 CrPC to quash a criminal proceeding
is only when an allegation made in the FIR or the
charge-sheet constitutes the ingredients of the
offence/offences alleged. Interference by the High
Court under Section 482 CrPC is to prevent the abuse
of process of any court or otherwise to secure the ends
of justice. It is settled law that the evidence produced
by the accused in his defence cannot be looked into by
the court, except in very exceptional circumstances, at
the initial stage of the criminal proceedings. It is trite
law that the High Court cannot embark upon the
appreciation of evidence while considering the petition
filed under Section 482 CrPC for quashing criminal
proceedings. It is clear from the law laid down by this
Court that if a prima facie case is made out disclosing
the ingredients of the offence alleged against the
accused, the Court cannot quash a criminal
proceeding.”
10. A reference may also be made to the recent decision of
5
this Court in Naresh Aneja v. State of U.P. , where it was held
that :
“ 18. It is well settled that when considering an
application under Section 482CrPC, the court cannot
conduct a mini-trial but instead is to be satisfied that
prima facie the offences as alleged are made out. To put
it differently, it is to be seen, without undertaking a
minute examination of the record, that there is some
substance in the allegations made which could meet the
threshold of statutory language.”
5
(2025) 2 SCC 604
Crl.A@ SLP(Crl) No. 480/2025 Page 8 of 11
11. In the present case, the Court has not only taken note of
the fraud (prevention and detection) risk management policy of
st
the bank but has also factored in the removal of the 1 valuer to
come to the conclusion that there is an absence of malafides on
the part of the bank. It has also come to the findings on merits
that the appellant undertook the entire process of securing a
loan from the bank with ill intention. We are at a loss to
understand as to how such a conclusion was arrived at, for the
settled position is that for determining intention, evidence has to
be taken into account. In a similar vein, how the Court
concluded that the appellant had an ulterior motive, is unclear.
12. That apart, even though the account of the appellant was
declared as NPA in April and despite the deposition of some
amount it could not be upgraded to a standard account, the path
available to the bank to auction off the gold was admittedly not
taken. The first recall notice was not answered. The second
recall notice was issued. The time granted was 15 days, but the
nd
payment was made much thereafter, on 22 November. The
revaluation report is of February, 2023, i.e., much after the
payment had been made and the loan stood settled. Both letters
addressed by the appellant to the officials of the bank seeking
return of the pledged gold were subsequent to the full and final
rd th
payment, i.e., on 3 April, 2023 and 25 April, 2023.
Crl.A@ SLP(Crl) No. 480/2025 Page 9 of 11
13. It is true that the appellant repaid the amount, but with
substantial delay. However, once the loan is settled, it is
difficult to understand as to why the gold was revalued and
auctioned.
14. Still further, the discussion made by the High Court in
quashing the FIR in no way addresses the possibility of the
respondents’ possible involvement in the misappropriation of
the gold pledged. There was no third-party verification
undertaken by the bank to corroborate the findings returned by
nd
the 2 valuer, so it cannot be positively ruled out, without
appreciating the evidence, that all the persons involved from the
bank or outside (valuers) did not commit any act affecting
appellant’s pledged gold. In any event, at all times the appellant
had no access to the gold which, after its initial valuation, was
always kept in the safe custody of the bankers. Fraud, if any,
whether perpetrated at the first instance of valuation, or later, is
a matter which could be unearthed only after a trial based on the
evidence led by the parties. But, as of now, in no
circumstances, it can be said that no prima facie case regarding
commission of an offence, as alleged in the FIR, is made out
from its perusal.
15. In that view of the matter, we hold that the High Court
had improperly quashed the proceedings initiated by the
appellant. It stands clarified that we have not expressed any
Crl.A@ SLP(Crl) No. 480/2025 Page 10 of 11
opinion on the matter, and the guilt or innocence of the
respondents has to be established in the trial, in accordance with
the law. The proceedings out of the subject FIR, mentioned in
paragraph 2 are revived and restored to the file of the concerned
Court.
16. The appeal is allowed. The Registry is directed to
communicate a copy of this order to the learned Registrar
General, High Court of Judicature at Patna, who shall send
forthwith a copy of this order to the concerned Court for
necessary action.
Pending applications, if any, shall stand closed.
……………….J.
(Sanjay Karol)
……………….J.
(Manoj Misra)
th
5 June, 2025;
New Delhi.
Crl.A@ SLP(Crl) No. 480/2025 Page 11 of 11
NON-REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. OF 2025
(Arising out of SLP(Crl.) No.480/2025)
ABHISHEK SINGH … APPELLANT(S)
Versus
AJAY KUMAR & ORS. … RESPONDENT(S)
J U D G M E N T
SANJAY KAROL, J.
Leave Granted.
2. The appellant, Abhishek Singh, is the complainant and
Signature Not Verified
Digitally signed by
NAVEEN D
Date: 2025.06.06
16:09:11 IST
Reason:
has approached this Court aggrieved by the judgment and order
Crl.A@ SLP(Crl) No. 480/2025 Page 1 of 11
th
dated 12 November, 2024, passed by the High Court of
Judicature at Patna in Criminal Miscellaneous No.67884 of
2023, whereby the respondents’ application under Section 482
1
of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 was allowed and the
th
First Information Report dated 7 September 2023 filed by him
under Sections 420, 406 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code,
2
1860 , being Mithanpura P.S. Case No.393 of 2023, was
quashed.
3. The brief facts that gave rise to this appeal, as set out by
the Courts below, are that the appellant, being a businessman by
vocation, was in need of certain funds which he secured by way
of a loan from the Bank of India, Motijhil Branch. Having
pledged 254 grams of 22 carat gold ornaments by way of
nd
security, a loan of ₹ 7,70,000 was made in his favour, on 22
July, 2020. The dispute arises when it comes to the repayment
of this loan. According to the appellant, upon receipt of notice
th
dated 7 October, 2022 from the bank asking him to pay a sum
of ₹ 8,01,383.59, which included interest, he repaid the same as
st
on 31 March, 2023. Unbeknownst to him, the bank conducted
a revaluation of the gold pledged by him and, to that end,
deducted ₹ 1500 towards fees. His applications for returning the
pledged gold fell on deaf years. On the other hand, according to
1
Cr.P.C.
2
IPC
Crl.A@ SLP(Crl) No. 480/2025 Page 2 of 11
the bank, he did not pay the loan, because of which the gold
became an asset of the bank. In order to realise the money
involved in the transaction, the said gold was revalued and
found to be counterfeit when it was allegedly reported by a
valuer, different from the one who had originally valued the
appellant’s gold when the loan was made, that the material
pledged was not gold in actuality but gold plated on top of other
metals. One FIR was registered under sections 420 and 379 IPC
nd
against the appellant on 22 May, 2023. Another FIR, subject
matter of this appeal, was registered subsequently after an
application was made by the appellant to the competent
authority under Section 156(3) of the Cr.P.C. Respondent No.1,
the Accused therein, was the Branch and Credit Manager at the
time of the revaluation of the appellant's gold.
4. Having completed its investigation into the appellant’s
allegations, the investigating authorities filed a chargesheet
st
before the Judicial Magistrate, 1 Class (East) Mithanpura,
having the particulars as Final Report/Chargesheet No.371/24,
th
dated 30 September, 2024. While the investigation was still
underway, the respondents filed an application seeking quashing
th
of the FIR on 5 October, 2023. It is in this application that the
impugned judgment came to be passed.
5. The High Court, having perused the material on record,
came to the following conclusions :
Crl.A@ SLP(Crl) No. 480/2025 Page 3 of 11
a) this FIR is “a mere counterblast” to the FIR lodged by the
bank;
b) the same has been lodged with the intention of causing
wrongful loss to the bank and wrongful gain to himself;
c) to this end, the respondent before the High Court, the
appellant herein, had obtained a loan from the bank for
pledging spurious gold ornaments;
d) the institution of the FIR was “with an ulterior motive
and also as an afterthought”;
e) even if the contents of the complaint are taken at face
value, no offence is made out.
f) The Court relied upon paragraphs 29 to 31 of Priyanka
3
Srivastava v. State of UP to hold that since the appellant
had not affixed any affidavit as mandated by this
judgment, the FIR was unsustainable;
g) Continuation of criminal proceedings against the
respondents herein would amount to an abuse of process
of the Court, given that the complaint made by the
appellant herein was “malicious”.
6. In that view of the matter, the FIR was quashed, and the
appellant carried the matter to this Court.
3
(2015) 6 SCC 287
Crl.A@ SLP(Crl) No. 480/2025 Page 4 of 11
7. We have heard the learned Senior counsel appearing for
the parties and have gone through the record in detail. It is
sought to be contended by the appellant, inter alia , that :
st
a) the High Court failed to appreciate that as on 31
March, 2023, there was no outstanding loan, against
which the process of recovery could have been
initiated;
b) in the impugned judgment, reliance was placed on
documents other than the FIR/complaint which would
be outside its scope. Other documents, which may be
of the nature of defence of the party against whom
allegations have been made in the FIR, cannot be
looked into;
c) the revaluation of the appellant’s pledged gold was
done behind his back and contrary to the terms of the
loan agreement. The possibility of tampering with or
replacing the ornaments with those of questionable
quality cannot be ruled out;
d) the complaint made under section 156 (3) Cr.P.C. dated
th
24 May, 2023 did have an affidavit attached to it, and
therefore, the findings made in Paras 33 to 35, are
erroneous;
Crl.A@ SLP(Crl) No. 480/2025 Page 5 of 11
st
e) the non-lodging of FIR against the 1 valuer, which,
according to the respondents, was entirely incorrect,
raises suspicion;
f) the charge on the appellant’s account without consent
or prior notice amounts to fraud and cheating.
Per contra, the respondents canvassed, amongst others,
the following aspects :
a) the gold loan account of the appellant had been
st
declared a non-performing asset firstly on 1 of May,
2021 but then upon payment, the same was again
upgraded to standard. Subsequent non-payment led to
th
its declaration as an NPA once again on 30 April,
2022.
b) The amount deposited by the appellant on issuance of a
recall notice was not sufficient for the account to be
upgraded again and, as such, the gold pledged by the
appellant was revalued.
st
c) Upon finding that the 1 gold valuer had possibly
committed fraud, his de-empanelment was made.
d) At the time of granting of loan to the appellant the
respondents herein were not posted at the relevant
location but were only present at the time of
revaluation.
Crl.A@ SLP(Crl) No. 480/2025 Page 6 of 11
e) The appellant deliberately allowed the loan to become
an NPA, since he knew that the ornaments alleged were
fake.
st th
f) In the 1 recall notice dated 30 July, 2022 issued to
the appellant, it had been clearly stated that if he failed
to deposit the dues within 15 days, the bank would take
steps to auction the gold jewellery. The appellant did
not respond. This shows the clear intention on the part
of the appellant to cheat.
8. We have given our consideration to the multifarious
arguments advanced at the bar.
9. The scope of the Court’s power to quash and set aside
proceedings is well-settled to warrant any restatement. While
the arguments advanced have the potential to raise many issues
for consideration, we must first satisfy ourselves as to the
propriety of the exercise of such power by the High Court. The
task of the High Court, when called upon to adjudicate an
application seeking to quash the proceedings, is to see whether,
prima facie , an offence is made out or not. It is not to examine
whether the charges may hold up in the Court. In doing so, the
area of action is circumscribed. In Rajeev Kourav v.
4
Baisahab , it was held :
4
(2020) 3 SCC 317
Crl.A@ SLP(Crl) No. 480/2025 Page 7 of 11
“8. It is no more res integra that exercise of power
under Section 482 CrPC to quash a criminal proceeding
is only when an allegation made in the FIR or the
charge-sheet constitutes the ingredients of the
offence/offences alleged. Interference by the High
Court under Section 482 CrPC is to prevent the abuse
of process of any court or otherwise to secure the ends
of justice. It is settled law that the evidence produced
by the accused in his defence cannot be looked into by
the court, except in very exceptional circumstances, at
the initial stage of the criminal proceedings. It is trite
law that the High Court cannot embark upon the
appreciation of evidence while considering the petition
filed under Section 482 CrPC for quashing criminal
proceedings. It is clear from the law laid down by this
Court that if a prima facie case is made out disclosing
the ingredients of the offence alleged against the
accused, the Court cannot quash a criminal
proceeding.”
10. A reference may also be made to the recent decision of
5
this Court in Naresh Aneja v. State of U.P. , where it was held
that :
“ 18. It is well settled that when considering an
application under Section 482CrPC, the court cannot
conduct a mini-trial but instead is to be satisfied that
prima facie the offences as alleged are made out. To put
it differently, it is to be seen, without undertaking a
minute examination of the record, that there is some
substance in the allegations made which could meet the
threshold of statutory language.”
5
(2025) 2 SCC 604
Crl.A@ SLP(Crl) No. 480/2025 Page 8 of 11
11. In the present case, the Court has not only taken note of
the fraud (prevention and detection) risk management policy of
st
the bank but has also factored in the removal of the 1 valuer to
come to the conclusion that there is an absence of malafides on
the part of the bank. It has also come to the findings on merits
that the appellant undertook the entire process of securing a
loan from the bank with ill intention. We are at a loss to
understand as to how such a conclusion was arrived at, for the
settled position is that for determining intention, evidence has to
be taken into account. In a similar vein, how the Court
concluded that the appellant had an ulterior motive, is unclear.
12. That apart, even though the account of the appellant was
declared as NPA in April and despite the deposition of some
amount it could not be upgraded to a standard account, the path
available to the bank to auction off the gold was admittedly not
taken. The first recall notice was not answered. The second
recall notice was issued. The time granted was 15 days, but the
nd
payment was made much thereafter, on 22 November. The
revaluation report is of February, 2023, i.e., much after the
payment had been made and the loan stood settled. Both letters
addressed by the appellant to the officials of the bank seeking
return of the pledged gold were subsequent to the full and final
rd th
payment, i.e., on 3 April, 2023 and 25 April, 2023.
Crl.A@ SLP(Crl) No. 480/2025 Page 9 of 11
13. It is true that the appellant repaid the amount, but with
substantial delay. However, once the loan is settled, it is
difficult to understand as to why the gold was revalued and
auctioned.
14. Still further, the discussion made by the High Court in
quashing the FIR in no way addresses the possibility of the
respondents’ possible involvement in the misappropriation of
the gold pledged. There was no third-party verification
undertaken by the bank to corroborate the findings returned by
nd
the 2 valuer, so it cannot be positively ruled out, without
appreciating the evidence, that all the persons involved from the
bank or outside (valuers) did not commit any act affecting
appellant’s pledged gold. In any event, at all times the appellant
had no access to the gold which, after its initial valuation, was
always kept in the safe custody of the bankers. Fraud, if any,
whether perpetrated at the first instance of valuation, or later, is
a matter which could be unearthed only after a trial based on the
evidence led by the parties. But, as of now, in no
circumstances, it can be said that no prima facie case regarding
commission of an offence, as alleged in the FIR, is made out
from its perusal.
15. In that view of the matter, we hold that the High Court
had improperly quashed the proceedings initiated by the
appellant. It stands clarified that we have not expressed any
Crl.A@ SLP(Crl) No. 480/2025 Page 10 of 11
opinion on the matter, and the guilt or innocence of the
respondents has to be established in the trial, in accordance with
the law. The proceedings out of the subject FIR, mentioned in
paragraph 2 are revived and restored to the file of the concerned
Court.
16. The appeal is allowed. The Registry is directed to
communicate a copy of this order to the learned Registrar
General, High Court of Judicature at Patna, who shall send
forthwith a copy of this order to the concerned Court for
necessary action.
Pending applications, if any, shall stand closed.
……………….J.
(Sanjay Karol)
……………….J.
(Manoj Misra)
th
5 June, 2025;
New Delhi.
Crl.A@ SLP(Crl) No. 480/2025 Page 11 of 11