Supreme Court Quashes FIR Against Foreign National in Subcontracting Dispute

The Supreme Court of India overturned the Allahabad High Court's judgment in the case of Kim Wansoo vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors., in which it quashed the FIR and all subsequent legal actions against Mr. Kim Wansoo, a foreign national who served as the Project Manager for Hyundai Engineering & Construction India LLP (HEC India LLP).

Background: Hyundai Motor India Limited (HMIL) contracted HEC India LLP for the construction of the Gurgaon, HMI Project. HEC India LLP further subcontracted the project to various other companies, ultimately leading to the complainant, M/s. R.T. Construction, being engaged for manpower supply.

The complainant alleged that one of the subcontractors, M/s. YSSS India Construction (YSSS), in collusion with other parties, including Kim Wansoo, defaulted on a payment of approximately Rs. 9 Crores. Based on these allegations, an FIR was filed against multiple individuals and entities, including Mr. Wansoo, under various sections of the Indian Penal Code.

Mr. Wansoo approached the Allahabad High Court challenging the FIR, but it refused to quash the FIR, hence he approached the Supreme Court.

The Supreme Court went through the allegations made in the FIR and found them vague and not specifically accusing either Mr. Wansoo or his company, HEC India LLP. The court observed that the complaint essentially was a financial dispute between the complainant and YSSS, to which Mr. Wansoo was not a party.

The court reiterated its earlier rulings in several cases, including State of Haryana and Ors. v. Bhajan Lal and Ors (Click to Download), Pepsi Foods Ltd. and Anr. v. Special Judicial Magistrate and Ors (Click to Download)., and Mohammad Wajid and Another. v. State of U.P. and Anr (Click to Download)., emphasizing the High Court's power to quash criminal proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution of India or Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code in situations where allowing the case to continue would be an abuse of the legal process or lead to a miscarriage of justice, and the Court held "13. A perusal of the subject FIR would reveal that the same did not disclose commission of offence(s) as alleged without anything being added to the recitals thereof. That apart, besides the vague allegations, the rest of them, even if taken as true, would not disclose the commission of any offence and make out a case against, the appellant. In such circumstances, asking the appellant to stand the trial will be nothing but an abuse of process of law and as such, non-interference by refusing to exercise the power to quash the FIR and further proceedings based thereon, would result in miscarriage of justice."

The Supreme Court determined that the High Court had erred in not exercising its power to quash the FIR against Mr. Wansoo. The Apex Court stressed that the FIR lacked sufficient evidence to establish the commission of any offense by Mr. Wansoo and subjecting him to trial would constitute an abuse of the legal process. The Supreme Court, therefore, quashed the FIR against Mr. Wansoo, effectively ending the criminal proceedings against him.

Coram: Justice C. T. Ravikumar, and Justice Sanjay Kumar
Between: Kim Wansoo vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors.
Date of Judgment: 02-01-2025