Abhishek Singh Vs Ajay Kumar & Ors. (Supreme Court of India)
Gold Turns Fake? Let Trial Decide — Prima Facie Case Exists- Counterblast Theory Rejected by Supreme Court -FIR Revived by Supreme Court
Background & Loan Transaction
- Appellant pledged 254 grams of 22-carat gold & obtained a ₹7.70 lakh gold loan from Bank of India on 22.07.2020.
- Bank issued notice on 07.10.2022 for payment of ₹8,01,383.59 including interest.
- Appellant repaid entire dues by 31.03.2023 & repeatedly applied for return of pledged gold.
Dispute Leading to Litigation
- Bank revalued the gold through a different valuer, allegedly without notice to Appellant & charged ₹1500 for revaluation.
- New valuer reported that the pledged gold was not genuine, but only gold-plated metal.
- Bank claimed loan was not properly repaid earlier, treated account as NPA, & asserted that the gold had become bank’s asset.
Two FIRs & High Court Quashing
- Bank first filed an FIR against Appellant on 22.05.2023 for cheating.
- Appellant later filed his own FIR alleging cheating, fraud, misappropriation & possible manipulation of his pledged gold.
- Patna High Court quashed Appellant’s FIR u/s 482 Cr.P.C., holding:
- It was a counterblast to bank’s FIR.
- Appellant pledged spurious gold & acted with ulterior motive.
- FIR was malicious & continuation of proceedings would be abuse of process.
- Relied on Priyanka Srivastava to hold that absence of affidavit made FIR invalid.
- Accepted bank documents, policies & valuer’s de-empanelment as proof of bank’s bona fides.
Supreme Court’s Observations
- HC exceeded its jurisdiction u/s 482 Cr.P.C. by:
- Conducting a mini-trial.
- Relying on materials beyond FIR/complaint, including bank’s internal policies.
- Making factual findings on intention, bona fides & alleged fraud at the quashing stage.
- Court emphasized settled principles:
- At quashing stage, only prima facie offence needs to be examined.
- Defence materials cannot be relied upon unless in very rare cases.
- Whether allegations are ultimately provable is not relevant at 482 stage.
Key Red Flags Highlighted by Supreme Court
- Loan was fully repaid, yet bank proceeded with revaluation & alleged auction route.
- Two recall notices were issued but auction was never initiated earlier despite bank’s claims.
- Revaluation happened after repayment, raising questions on timing & necessity.
- Gold remained entirely in bank’s custody; therefore possibility of tampering or misappropriation cannot be ruled out without trial.
- No third-party verification to corroborate second valuer’s “fake gold” report.
- Whether fraud occurred during first valuation or later is a matter requiring evidence at trial, not assumptions at quashing stage.
Final Ruling
- High Court’s quashing of FIR was improper, legally unsustainable & beyond 482 jurisdiction.
- FIR filed by Appellant revived & restored; criminal proceedings to continue before trial court.
- Supreme Court clarified it has expressed no opinion on guilt or innocence; issues must be adjudicated only on evidence at trial.
FULL TEXT OF THE SUPREME COURT JUDGMENT/ORDER
Paid content
Become a Premium Member, or log in if you are already a Premium member.
