High Court not to examine u/s 482 CrPC whether charges will hold up in court: Supreme Court

The Supreme Court has said 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 and it is not to examine whether the charges may hold up in the court.

A bench of Justices Sanjay Karol and Manoj Misra pointed out in doing so, the area of action has been circumscribed as it cited Rajeev Kourav vs. Baisahab (2020), which held 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 was further held that the High Court cannot embark upon the appreciation of evidence while considering the petition filed under Section 482 CrPC for quashing criminal proceedings and it was 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.

Allowing an appeal by Abhishek Kumar against the Patna High Court's judgment of November 12, 2024, the bench also relied upon its recent decision in Naresh Aneja vs. State of UP (2025), which declared that when considering an application under Section 482 CrPC, 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.

In the instant case, the appellant-business secured a loan of Rs 7.70 lakh after pledging 254 grams of 22 carat gold ornaments by way of security. He repaid the amount as on March 31, 2023. However, his request to return the gold fell on deaf ears of bank officials, who claimed he did not repay 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. One FIR was registered under sections 420 and 379 IPC against the appellant on May 22, 2023.

The appellant also filed a complaint against the Branch and Credit Manager of the Bank at the time of the revaluation of the appellant's gold. While the investigation was underway, the respondent filed an application before the High Court which quashed the FIR lodged on October 5, 2023.

Examining the appeal, the bench noted the High Court had not only taken note of the fraud (prevention and detection) risk management policy of the bank but has also factored in the removal of the first 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.

Top court further noted it was 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, the bench felt. It also found the discussion made by the High Court in quashing the FIR in no way addressed 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 the second 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," the court said while reviving and restoring the proceedings out of the subject FIR to the file of the concerned court.

Case Title: Abhishek Singh vs. Ajay Kumar & Ors