Summary and Analysis of Abhishek Singh vs Ajay Kumar & Ors. (2025 INSC 807)

Case Details

• Court: Supreme Court of India

• Citation: 2025 INSC 807

• Judges: Sanjay Karol and Manoj Misra, JJ.

• Appeal: Criminal Appeal arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 480/2025

• Outcome: High Court’s quashing order set aside; FIR revived.

Background

1. Dispute: The appellant, Abhishek Singh, availed a gold loan of ₹7.7 lakh from Bank of India, pledging 254g of gold. Upon repayment (₹8.01 lakh including interest), the bank revalued the gold without notice, declared it counterfeit, and refused to return it.

2. FIRs:
   Bank’s FIR (May 2023): Accused appellant of fraud under Sections 420/379 IPC.
   Appellant’s FIR (September 2023): Accused bank officials (Respondents) of cheating (Sections 420/406/34 IPC) for wrongful revaluation and withholding pledged gold.

3. High Court’s Order: Quashed the appellant’s FIR, calling it a "counterblast" and "malicious," citing lack of affidavit under Priyanka Srivastava v. State of UP (2015) and no prima facie offence.

Supreme Court’s Analysis

1. Scope of Section 482 CrPC

• Limited Jurisdiction: Quashing under Section 482 CrPC is permissible only if allegations in the FIR prima facie disclose no offence (Rajeev Kourav v. Baisahab, 2020).

• No Mini-Trial: High Court cannot examine evidence or defense materials at this stage (Naresh Aneja v. State of UP, 2025).

2. Errors in High Court’s Judgment

• Beyond FIR’s Scope: High Court relied on bank policies and valuer’s de-empanelment—extraneous to FIR allegations.

• Premature Conclusions: Held appellant had "ill intention" without trial, violating settled law on intent determination.

• Procedural Lapse: Overlooked appellant’s affidavit attached to his complaint under Section 156(3) CrPC.

3. Merits of the FIR

• Prima Facie Offence: Allegations of unauthorized revaluation, non-return of gold post-repayment, and possible collusion between bank officials/valuers warranted trial.

• Suspicious Timing: Revaluation occurred after loan repayment, with no third-party verification.

Judgment

• The Supreme Court set aside the High Court’s order, holding:
  The FIR disclosed cognizable offences (cheating, criminal breach of trust).
  High Court exceeded its jurisdiction by delving into merits prematurely.

• Clarification: No opinion on guilt; trial court to examine evidence afresh.

Key Precedents Relied On

1. Priyanka Srivastava v. State of UP (2015) – Mandatory affidavit for complaints under Section 156(3) CrPC.

2. Rajeev Kourav v. Baisahab (2020) – Quashing only if FIR lacks prima facie offence.

3. Naresh Aneja v. State of UP (2025) – No mini-trial at quashing stage.

Final Order: High Court’s quashing order overturned; FIR restored for trial.

Conclusion

The judgment reaffirms the narrow scope of Section 482 CrPC, emphasizing that quashing is impermissible if allegations prima facie disclose offences. High Courts must avoid prejudging intent or relying on extraneous materials.