Abhishek Singh Vs. Ajay Kumar & Ors

Abhishek Singh Vs. Ajay Kumar & Ors.

(Criminal Appeal No. ______ of 2025 arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 480/2025)
Delivered by: Sanjay Karol, J.

The Supreme Court allowed the appeal and set aside the High Court's quashing of the FIR for the following main reasons:

⚖️ 1. Improper Quashing of FIR by High Court
Standard for Quashing FIR: The High Court overstepped the settled legal principle that quashing under Section 482 CrPC is only appropriate where no prima facie case is made out.

The High Court wrongly engaged in appreciating the merits, which is reserved for trial and not permissible at the stage of quashing.

Cited precedents:

Rajeev Kourav v. Baisahab (2020) 3 SCC 317

Naresh Aneja v. State of U.P. (2025) 2 SCC 604

🔍 2. FIR Discloses Prima Facie Offence
The FIR disclosed sufficient material suggesting that misappropriation of the pledged gold could have taken place, thus prima facie offences under IPC Sections 420, 406, and 34 were made out.

The bank’s revaluation report and subsequent actions required investigation and evidence, especially as:

The gold was in bank custody throughout.

The appellant had no access to the gold after pledging.

The 2nd valuer's report contradicts the 1st valuer's report, and no independent third-party verification was done.

💰 3. Dispute Not Entirely Civil
Although the matter stemmed from a loan transaction, the allegations of misappropriation and fraud are criminal in nature and cannot be dismissed as a mere civil dispute.

The non-return of gold after loan repayment, and actions taken without notice, required examination.

🧾 4. Gold Was Revalued After Repayment
The gold was revalued in February 2023, while the loan was fully repaid on 31st March 2023, raising questions about why revaluation and auction steps were taken post-settlement.

❌ 5. High Court Made Findings Without Trial
The High Court concluded:

That the FIR was a "counterblast" to the bank’s FIR.

That the complainant had an “ulterior motive”.

But the Supreme Court held these conclusions were premature and speculative, as intention and motive must be decided based on evidence at trial, not at the FIR stage.

🧾 6. Affidavit Requirement Was Complied With
The High Court wrongly held that no affidavit was filed with the Section 156(3) CrPC application. The Supreme Court clarified that an affidavit was in fact filed, thus the High Court’s reliance on Priyanka Srivastava v. State of U.P. (2015) 6 SCC 287 was misplaced.

📑 7. Issue of First Valuer’s Role Unexplored
No FIR was filed against the first valuer who originally appraised the gold. This raised suspicion and required proper investigation.

⚖️ 8. Trial Is Necessary to Determine Facts
The Supreme Court stressed that only a full trial can determine:

Whether the ornaments were fake at the time of pledging.

Whether any bank official or valuer was involved in tampering or fraud.

Thus, quashing the FIR at the threshold stage was unwarranted.

✅ Conclusion
The High Court's judgment quashing the FIR was improper.

The Supreme Court revived the criminal proceedings, without expressing any opinion on the guilt or innocence of the parties.

Let me know if you’d like this translated into Telugu or summarized for a legal brief.

                               TELUGU



న్యాయ నిర్ణయంలో పేర్కొన్న కారణాలు: అభిషేక్ సింగ్ వర్సెస్ అజయ్ కుమార్ & ఇతరులు
(సీసీ నెం. ______ ఆఫ్ 2025, ఎస్ఎల్‌పీ (క్రిమి.) నెం. 480/2025 నుంచి)
న్యాయమూర్తి: శంజయ్ కరోల్ జి.

సుప్రీం కోర్టు ఈ అప్పీల్‌ను అనుకూలంగా పరిష్కరించి, హైకోర్టు చేసిన ఎఫ్ఐఆర్ కొట్టివేతను రద్దు చేసింది. దీనికి ప్రాథమికంగా కింది కారణాలు చూపబడినవి:

⚖️ 1. హైకోర్టు అనుచితంగా ఎఫ్ఐఆర్‌ను కొట్టివేసింది
హైకోర్టు CrPC సెక్షన్ 482 ప్రకారం ఎఫ్ఐఆర్‌ను కొట్టివేయడానికి ఉండాల్సిన ప్రాథమిక నేరాల ఆధారాలు ఉన్నాయా లేదా అన్నదానిని మాత్రమే పరిశీలించాల్సింది.

కానీ హైకోర్టు తదుపరి విచారణలో చేసే మౌలిక అంశాలను ముందే తేల్చివేసింది, ఇది తప్పు.

ప్రస్తావించిన కేసులు:

రాజీవ్ కౌరవ్ వర్సెస్ బైసాహబ్ (2020) 3 SCC 317

నరేశ్ అనేజా వర్సెస్ స్టేట్ ఆఫ్ యుపి (2025) 2 SCC 604

🔍 2. ఎఫ్ఐఆర్‌లో నేరానికి సంబంధించిన ఆధారాలు ఉన్నాయన్నది స్పష్టం
అభియోగంలో బ్యాంక్ అధికారులచే బంగారం దుర్వినియోగం జరిగిందన్న ఆరోపణలపై ప్రాథమికంగా నేరం ఉన్నట్టు తెలుస్తోంది.

ఎందుకంటే:

బంగారం బ్యాంక్ కస్టడీలోనే ఉంది.

మొదటి విలువ నిర్ణయించిన వ్యక్తికి విరుద్ధంగా, రెండవ విలువ నిర్వహించిన వ్యక్తి బంగారం నకిలీ అని చెప్పాడు.

దీనిపై స్వతంత్ర ధృవీకరణ చేయకపోవడం అనుమానాస్పదం.

💰 3. ఇది కేవలం పౌర వివాదం కాదని కోర్టు అభిప్రాయపడింది
ఇది కేవలం లోన్ విషయంలో తలెత్తిన సమస్య మాత్రమే కాకుండా, వంచన, దొంగతన, నమ్మకద్రోహం వంటి ఫిర్యాదుల మూలంగా క్రిమినల్ కేసు కూడా కావచ్చు.

🧾 4. రీపేమెంట్ తర్వాత బంగారాన్ని మళ్లీ విలువ చేయడం అనుమానాస్పదం
అప్పు మొత్తాన్ని 2023 మార్చి 31న పూర్తిగా చెల్లించిన తర్వాతే, 2023 ఫిబ్రవరిలో బంగారం మళ్లీ విలువ చేయడం జరిగింది, ఇది తగిన కారణం లేకుండా జరిగింది.

❌ 5. హైకోర్టు విచారణ లేకుండానే నిర్ణయాలకు వచ్చిందని కోర్టు గుర్తించింది
హైకోర్టు అభియోగదారుడు చేసిన ఫిర్యాదు "ఎదురుదాడిగా" చేసి ఉన్నారని, "అనుబంధ ఉద్దేశంతో" చేశారని తేల్చివేసింది.

కానీ సుప్రీంకోర్టు తెలిపింది: ఉద్దేశ్యం, దురుద్దేశం వంటి అంశాలు సాక్ష్యాలతో మాత్రమే తేల్చాలి, ఫిర్యాదు దశలో కాదు.

🧾 6. 156(3) CrPC అఫిడవిట్ ఇచ్చినట్టు నిరూపితమైంది
హైకోర్టు Priyanka Srivastava v. State of UP (2015) 6 SCC 287 కేసును ఉటంకిస్తూ అఫిడవిట్ లేదని చెప్పింది.

అయితే సుప్రీంకోర్టు స్పష్టంచేసింది: అఫిడవిట్ ఇచ్చారు — హైకోర్టు పరిశీలనలో లోపం ఉంది.

📑 7. మొదటి విలువ నిర్ధారించిన వ్యక్తిపై ఎలాంటి చర్యలు తీసుకోకపోవడం అనుమానాస్పదం
మొదటి విలువ చేసిన వ్యతిరేకంగా ఎఫ్ఐఆర్ నమోదు చేయకపోవడం సంపూర్ణ నిర్ధారణ అవసరమైన అంశంగా ఉందని కోర్టు పేర్కొంది.

⚖️ 8. నిజానిజాలు తేల్చాల్సింది విచారణ ద్వారా మాత్రమే
మొదటి విలువ సమయంలో బంగారం నకిలీగా ఉండిందా? లేదా తర్వాత ఎవరైనా దానిని మార్చారా? వంటి ప్రశ్నలకు సమాధానం విచారణ తర్వాతే లభించాలి.

అందువల్ల, ఫిర్యాదు దశలోనే కేసును కొట్టివేయడం తగదు.

✅ తీర్పు:
హైకోర్టు ఎఫ్ఐఆర్‌ను కొట్టివేసిన తీర్పు తప్పుగా ఉందని సుప్రీంకోర్టు తేల్చింది.

ఫిర్యాదు ఆధారంగా నమోదు అయిన క్రిమినల్ ప్రాసీడింగ్స్‌ను పునరుద్ధరించింది.

గుణాత్మక తీర్పు ఇవ్వకుండా, విచారణ ద్వారా తప్ప/guilt తేల్చాలని స్పష్టంగా తెలిపింది.

                               JUDGEMENT

Abhishek Singh Vs. Ajay Kumar & Ors.

[Criminal Appeal No._________ of 2025 arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 480/2025]

Sanjay Karol, J.

1. Leave Granted.

2. The appellant, Abhishek Singh, is the complainant and has approached this Court aggrieved by the judgment and order dated 12th November, 2024, passed by the High Court of Judicature at Patna in Criminal Miscellaneous No.67884 of 2023, whereby the respondents' application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 19731 was allowed and the First Information Report dated 7th September 2023 filed by him under Sections 420, 406 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 18602, being Mithanpura P.S. Case No.393 of 2023, was quashed.

3. The brief facts that gave rise to this appeal, as set out by the Courts below, are that the appellant, being a businessman by vocation, was in need of certain funds which he secured by way of a loan from the Bank of India, Motijhil Branch. Having pledged 254 grams of 22 carat gold ornaments by way of security, a loan of ₹ 7,70,000 was made in his favour, on 22nd July, 2020. The dispute arises when it comes to the repayment of this loan. According to the appellant, upon receipt of notice dated 7th October, 2022 from the bank asking him to pay a sum of ₹ 8,01,383.59, which included interest, he repaid the same as on 31st March, 2023.

Unbeknownst to him, the bank conducted a revaluation of the gold pledged by him and, to that end, deducted ₹ 1500 towards fees. His applications for returning the pledged gold fell on deaf years. On the other hand, according to the bank, he did not pay 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 when it was allegedly reported by a valuer, different from the one who had originally valued the appellant's gold when the loan was made, that the material pledged was not gold in actuality but gold plated on top of other metals.

One FIR was registered under sections 420 and 379 IPC against the appellant on 22nd May, 2023. Another FIR, subject matter of this appeal, was registered subsequently after an application was made by the appellant to the competent authority under Section 156(3) of the Cr.P.C. Respondent No.1, the Accused therein, was the Branch and Credit Manager at the time of the revaluation of the appellant's gold.

4. Having completed its investigation into the appellant's allegations, the investigating authorities filed a chargesheet before the Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class (East) Mithanpura, having the particulars as Final Report/Chargesheet No.371/24, dated 30th September, 2024. While the investigation was still underway, the respondents filed an application seeking quashing of the FIR on 5th October, 2023. It is in this application that the impugned judgment came to be passed.

5. The High Court, having perused the material on record, came to the following conclusions:

a) this FIR is "a mere counterblast" to the FIR lodged by the bank;

b) the same has been lodged with the intention of causing wrongful loss to the bank and wrongful gain to himself;

c) to this end, the respondent before the High Court, the appellant herein, had obtained a loan from the bank for pledging spurious gold ornaments;

d) the institution of the FIR was "with an ulterior motive and also as an afterthought";

e) even if the contents of the complaint are taken at face value, no offence is made out.

f) The Court relied upon paragraphs 29 to 31 of Priyanka Srivastava v. State of UP3 to hold that since the appellant had not affixed any affidavit as mandated by this judgment, the FIR was unsustainable;

g) Continuation of criminal proceedings against the respondents herein would amount to an abuse of process of the Court, given that the complaint made by the appellant herein was "malicious".

6. In that view of the matter, the FIR was quashed, and the appellant carried the matter to this Court.

7. We have heard the learned Senior counsel appearing for the parties and have gone through the record in detail. It is sought to be contended by the appellant, inter alia, that:

a) the High Court failed to appreciate that as on 31st March, 2023, there was no outstanding loan, against which the process of recovery could have been initiated;

b) in the impugned judgment, reliance was placed on documents other than the FIR/complaint which would be outside its scope. Other documents, which may be of the nature of defence of the party against whom allegations have been made in the FIR, cannot be looked into;

c) the revaluation of the appellant's pledged gold was done behind his back and contrary to the terms of the loan agreement. The possibility of tampering with or replacing the ornaments with those of questionable quality cannot be ruled out;

d) the complaint made under section 156 (3) Cr.P.C. dated 24th May, 2023 did have an affidavit attached to it, and therefore, the findings made in Paras 33 to 35, are erroneous;

e) the non-lodging of FIR against the 1st valuer, which, according to the respondents, was entirely incorrect, raises suspicion;

f) the charge on the appellant's account without consent or prior notice amounts to fraud and cheating. Per contra, the respondents canvassed, amongst others, the following aspects:

a) the gold loan account of the appellant had been declared a non-performing asset firstly on 1st of May, 2021 but then upon payment, the same was again upgraded to standard. Subsequent non-payment led to its declaration as an NPA once again on 30th April, 2022.

b) The amount deposited by the appellant on issuance of a recall notice was not sufficient for the account to be upgraded again and, as such, the gold pledged by the appellant was revalued.

c) Upon finding that the 1st gold valuer had possibly committed fraud, his de-empanelment was made.

d) At the time of granting of loan to the appellant the respondents herein were not posted at the relevant location but were only present at the time of revaluation.

e) The appellant deliberately allowed the loan to become an NPA, since he knew that the ornaments alleged were fake.

f) In the 1st recall notice dated 30th July, 2022 issued to the appellant, it had been clearly stated that if he failed to deposit the dues within 15 days, the bank would take steps to auction the gold jewellery. The appellant did not respond. This shows the clear intention on the part of the appellant to cheat.

8. We have given our consideration to the multifarious arguments advanced at the bar.

9. The scope of the Court's power to quash and set aside proceedings is well-settled to warrant any restatement. While the arguments advanced have the potential to raise many issues for consideration, we must first satisfy ourselves as to the propriety of the exercise of such power by the High Court. 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. It is not to examine whether the charges may hold up in the Court. In doing so, the area of action is circumscribed. In Rajeev Kourav v. Baisahab4, it was held:

"8. It is no more res integra that exercise of power under Section 482 CrPC to quash a criminal proceeding is only when an allegation made in the FIR or the charge-sheet constitutes the ingredients of the offence/offences alleged. Interference by the High Court under Section 482 CrPC is to prevent the abuse of process of any court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice.

It is settled law 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 is trite law that the High Court cannot embark upon the appreciation of evidence while considering the petition filed under Section 482 CrPC for quashing criminal proceedings. It is 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."

10. A reference may also be made to the recent decision of this Court in Naresh Aneja v. State of U.P.5, where it was held that:

"18. It is well settled that when considering an application under Section 482CrPC, 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."

11. In the present case, the Court has 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 1st 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. We are at a loss to understand as to how such a conclusion was arrived at, for the settled position is that for determining intention, evidence has to be taken into account. In a similar vein, how the Court concluded that the appellant had an ulterior motive, is unclear.

12. That apart, even though the account of the appellant was declared as NPA in April and despite the deposition of some amount it could not be upgraded to a standard account, the path available to the bank to auction off the gold was admittedly not taken. The first recall notice was not answered. The second recall notice was issued. The time granted was 15 days, but the payment was made much thereafter, on 22nd November. The revaluation report is of February, 2023, i.e., much after the payment had been made and the loan stood settled. Both letters addressed by the appellant to the officials of the bank seeking return of the pledged gold were subsequent to the full and final payment, i.e., on 3rd April, 2023 and 25th April, 2023.

13. It is 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.

14. Still further, the discussion made by the High Court in quashing the FIR in no way addresses 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 2nd 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.

In any event, at all times the appellant had no access to the gold which, after its initial valuation, was always kept in the safe custody of the bankers. Fraud, if any, whether perpetrated at the first instance of valuation, or later, is a matter which could be unearthed only after a trial based on the evidence led by the parties. But, as of now, in no circumstances, it can be said that no prima facie case regarding commission of an offence, as alleged in the FIR, is made out from its perusal.

15. In that view of the matter, we hold that the High Court had improperly quashed the proceedings initiated by the appellant. It stands clarified that we have not expressed any opinion on the matter, and the guilt or innocence of the respondents has to be established in the trial, in accordance with the law. The proceedings out of the subject FIR, mentioned in paragraph 2 are revived and restored to the file of the concerned Court.

16. The appeal is allowed. The Registry is directed to communicate a copy of this order to the learned Registrar General, High Court of Judicature at Patna, who shall send forthwith a copy of this order to the concerned Court for necessary action. Pending applications, if any, shall stand closed.

..................J. (Sanjay Karol)

..................J. (Manoj Misra)

New Delhi.

June 5th, 2025

1 Cr.P.C.

2 IPC

3 (2015) 6 SCC 287

4 (2020) 3 SCC 317

5 (2025) 2 SCC 604 Abhishek Singh Vs. Ajay Kumar & Ors.
(Criminal Appeal No. ______ of 2025 arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 480/2025)
Delivered by: Sanjay Karol, J.

The Supreme Court allowed the appeal and set aside the High Court's quashing of the FIR for the following main reasons:

The High Court wrongly engaged in appreciating the merits, which is reserved for trial and not permissible at the stage of quashing.

Cited precedents:

Rajeev Kourav v. Baisahab (2020) 3 SCC 317

Naresh Aneja v. State of U.P. (2025) 2 SCC 604

The bank’s revaluation report and subsequent actions required investigation and evidence, especially as:

The gold was in bank custody throughout.

The appellant had no access to the gold after pledging.

The 2nd valuer's report contradicts the 1st valuer's report, and no independent third-party verification was done.

The non-return of gold after loan repayment, and actions taken without notice, required examination.

❌ 5. High Court Made Findings Without Trial
The High Court concluded:

That the FIR was a "counterblast" to the bank’s FIR.

That the complainant had an “ulterior motive”.

But the Supreme Court held these conclusions were premature and speculative, as intention and motive must be decided based on evidence at trial, not at the FIR stage.

📑 7. Issue of First Valuer’s Role Unexplored
No FIR was filed against the first valuer who originally appraised the gold. This raised suspicion and required proper investigation.

⚖️ 8. Trial Is Necessary to Determine Facts
The Supreme Court stressed that only a full trial can determine:

Whether the ornaments were fake at the time of pledging.

Whether any bank official or valuer was involved in tampering or fraud.

Thus, quashing the FIR at the threshold stage was unwarranted.

✅ Conclusion
The High Court's judgment quashing the FIR was improper.

The Supreme Court revived the criminal proceedings, without expressing any opinion on the guilt or innocence of the parties.

Let me know if you’d like this translated into Telugu or summarized for a legal brief.
TELUGU

న్యాయ నిర్ణయంలో పేర్కొన్న కారణాలు: అభిషేక్ సింగ్ వర్సెస్ అజయ్ కుమార్ & ఇతరులు
(సీసీ నెం. ______ ఆఫ్ 2025, ఎస్ఎల్‌పీ (క్రిమి.) నెం. 480/2025 నుంచి)
న్యాయమూర్తి: శంజయ్ కరోల్ జి.

సుప్రీం కోర్టు ఈ అప్పీల్‌ను అనుకూలంగా పరిష్కరించి, హైకోర్టు చేసిన ఎఫ్ఐఆర్ కొట్టివేతను రద్దు చేసింది. దీనికి ప్రాథమికంగా కింది కారణాలు చూపబడినవి:

⚖️ 1. హైకోర్టు అనుచితంగా ఎఫ్ఐఆర్‌ను కొట్టివేసింది
హైకోర్టు CrPC సెక్షన్ 482 ప్రకారం ఎఫ్ఐఆర్‌ను కొట్టివేయడానికి ఉండాల్సిన ప్రాథమిక నేరాల ఆధారాలు ఉన్నాయా లేదా అన్నదానిని మాత్రమే పరిశీలించాల్సింది.

కానీ హైకోర్టు తదుపరి విచారణలో చేసే మౌలిక అంశాలను ముందే తేల్చివేసింది, ఇది తప్పు.

ప్రస్తావించిన కేసులు:

రాజీవ్ కౌరవ్ వర్సెస్ బైసాహబ్ (2020) 3 SCC 317

నరేశ్ అనేజా వర్సెస్ స్టేట్ ఆఫ్ యుపి (2025) 2 SCC 604

🔍 2. ఎఫ్ఐఆర్‌లో నేరానికి సంబంధించిన ఆధారాలు ఉన్నాయన్నది స్పష్టం
అభియోగంలో బ్యాంక్ అధికారులచే బంగారం దుర్వినియోగం జరిగిందన్న ఆరోపణలపై ప్రాథమికంగా నేరం ఉన్నట్టు తెలుస్తోంది.

ఎందుకంటే:

బంగారం బ్యాంక్ కస్టడీలోనే ఉంది.

మొదటి విలువ నిర్ణయించిన వ్యక్తికి విరుద్ధంగా, రెండవ విలువ నిర్వహించిన వ్యక్తి బంగారం నకిలీ అని చెప్పాడు.

దీనిపై స్వతంత్ర ధృవీకరణ చేయకపోవడం అనుమానాస్పదం.

💰 3. ఇది కేవలం పౌర వివాదం కాదని కోర్టు అభిప్రాయపడింది
ఇది కేవలం లోన్ విషయంలో తలెత్తిన సమస్య మాత్రమే కాకుండా, వంచన, దొంగతన, నమ్మకద్రోహం వంటి ఫిర్యాదుల మూలంగా క్రిమినల్ కేసు కూడా కావచ్చు.

🧾 4. రీపేమెంట్ తర్వాత బంగారాన్ని మళ్లీ విలువ చేయడం అనుమానాస్పదం
అప్పు మొత్తాన్ని 2023 మార్చి 31న పూర్తిగా చెల్లించిన తర్వాతే, 2023 ఫిబ్రవరిలో బంగారం మళ్లీ విలువ చేయడం జరిగింది, ఇది తగిన కారణం లేకుండా జరిగింది.

❌ 5. హైకోర్టు విచారణ లేకుండానే నిర్ణయాలకు వచ్చిందని కోర్టు గుర్తించింది
హైకోర్టు అభియోగదారుడు చేసిన ఫిర్యాదు "ఎదురుదాడిగా" చేసి ఉన్నారని, "అనుబంధ ఉద్దేశంతో" చేశారని తేల్చివేసింది.

కానీ సుప్రీంకోర్టు తెలిపింది: ఉద్దేశ్యం, దురుద్దేశం వంటి అంశాలు సాక్ష్యాలతో మాత్రమే తేల్చాలి, ఫిర్యాదు దశలో కాదు.

🧾 6. 156(3) CrPC అఫిడవిట్ ఇచ్చినట్టు నిరూపితమైంది
హైకోర్టు Priyanka Srivastava v. State of UP (2015) 6 SCC 287 కేసును ఉటంకిస్తూ అఫిడవిట్ లేదని చెప్పింది.

అయితే సుప్రీంకోర్టు స్పష్టంచేసింది: అఫిడవిట్ ఇచ్చారు — హైకోర్టు పరిశీలనలో లోపం ఉంది.

📑 7. మొదటి విలువ నిర్ధారించిన వ్యక్తిపై ఎలాంటి చర్యలు తీసుకోకపోవడం అనుమానాస్పదం
మొదటి విలువ చేసిన వ్యతిరేకంగా ఎఫ్ఐఆర్ నమోదు చేయకపోవడం సంపూర్ణ నిర్ధారణ అవసరమైన అంశంగా ఉందని కోర్టు పేర్కొంది.

⚖️ 8. నిజానిజాలు తేల్చాల్సింది విచారణ ద్వారా మాత్రమే
మొదటి విలువ సమయంలో బంగారం నకిలీగా ఉండిందా? లేదా తర్వాత ఎవరైనా దానిని మార్చారా? వంటి ప్రశ్నలకు సమాధానం విచారణ తర్వాతే లభించాలి.

అందువల్ల, ఫిర్యాదు దశలోనే కేసును కొట్టివేయడం తగదు.

✅ తీర్పు:
హైకోర్టు ఎఫ్ఐఆర్‌ను కొట్టివేసిన తీర్పు తప్పుగా ఉందని సుప్రీంకోర్టు తేల్చింది.

ఫిర్యాదు ఆధారంగా నమోదు అయిన క్రిమినల్ ప్రాసీడింగ్స్‌ను పునరుద్ధరించింది.

గుణాత్మక తీర్పు ఇవ్వకుండా, విచారణ ద్వారా తప్ప/guilt తేల్చాలని స్పష్టంగా తెలిపింది.

JUDGEMENT