In the case of Kim Wansoo v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors., decided on January 2, 2025, the Supreme Court of India addressed the quashing of a First Information Report (FIR) against a foreign national, emphasizing the High Courts' authority to exercise their writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution to quash criminal proceedings.

Background:
Hyundai Motor India Limited awarded a contract for the construction of the Gurgaon HMI Project to Hyundai Engineering & Construction India LLP (HEC India LLP), where the appellant, Kim Wansoo, served as the Project Manager. HEC India LLP subcontracted parts of the work to KOTEC Automotive Services India Private Limited, which further subcontracted to M/s YSSS India Construction (YSSS). YSSS, in turn, engaged M/s R.T. Construction, owned by the complainant, to provide labor for the project.

The complainant alleged that YSSS, in collusion with others, defaulted on payments amounting to approximately ₹9 crores. An FIR was registered against multiple individuals, including Kim Wansoo, under various sections of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), such as Sections 406 (criminal breach of trust), 420 (cheating), 323 (voluntarily causing hurt), 504 (intentional insult), 506 (criminal intimidation), and 120-B (criminal conspiracy).

Proceedings:
Following the registration of the FIR, the appellant received notices under Section 91 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) to produce specific documents. Despite submitting available documents, further notices were issued for additional documents not in his possession. Seeking relief, the appellant approached the Allahabad High Court to quash the FIR. The High Court declined to quash the FIR but directed that the appellant should not be arrested unless credible evidence emerged during the investigation or until the submission of the police report under Section 173(2) CrPC. Aggrieved by this decision, the appellant appealed to the Supreme Court.

Supreme Court's Analysis:
The Supreme Court bench, comprising Justice C.T. Ravikumar and Justice Sanjay Kumar, examined the allegations in the FIR and found that they lacked specific accusations against the appellant or HEC India LLP. The Court observed that the complainant's primary grievance pertained to payment defaults by other entities, not directly involving the appellant.

The Court reiterated that while the inherent power to quash criminal proceedings is typically exercised under Section 482 CrPC, the High Courts also possess the extraordinary power under Article 226 of the Constitution to quash FIRs and related proceedings to prevent abuse of the legal process or to secure the ends of justice. This position aligns with precedents set in cases like State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal and Pepsi Foods Ltd. v. Special Judicial Magistrate.

The bench emphasized that compelling the appellant to stand trial based on vague and unspecific allegations would constitute an abuse of the legal process and result in a miscarriage of justice.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the Allahabad High Court's judgment. Consequently, FIR No. 64/2020 registered at Police Station Sadar Bazar, District Meerut, and all subsequent proceedings related to it, were quashed concerning the appellant, Kim Wansoo.

This judgment underscores the judiciary's role in preventing the misuse of legal processes and affirms the High Courts' authority to exercise their writ jurisdiction to quash criminal proceedings when warranted.