High Courts Must Intervene If Criminal Law Used as a Tool for Civil Vendetta: Supreme Court

The Supreme Court has said while the jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C is extraordinary and must be exercised sparingly, it is the duty of the High Court to intervene where continuation of criminal proceedings would amount to an abuse of process of law, or where the dispute is purely of a civil nature and criminal colour has been artificially given to it. 

Conversely, where disputed questions of fact arise requiring adjudication, the matter must ordinarily proceed to trial, a bench of Justices B V Nagarathna and R Mahadevan said, allowing a plea by Anukul Singh to quash an FIR lodged against him in 2003 and the charge sheet filed under Sections 420, 467, and 468 of the Indian Penal Code.

Court allowed the appeal against the Allahabad High Court's order of October 22, 2019. It said the High Court, while refusing to quash the proceedings, misdirected itself in law by failing to apply the ratio laid down in State of Haryana Vs Bhajan Lal (1992), and the subsequent authorities, which uniformly held that the machinery of criminal law cannot be permitted to be misused for settling civil disputes or to wreak vengeance.

"In the facts of the present case, it is manifest that the dispute – concerning repayment of loan money and the alleged coercion in execution of documents – is purely civil in character. The essential ingredients of cheating or forgery are not prima facie made out. The institution of multiple FIRs in quick succession, particularly after the appellant had already initiated lawful proceedings, reinforces the inference of mala fides,'' the bench said.  

The appellant submitted that his father purchased land measuring 8.592 hectares at village Sherpur Mafi, District Moradabad, from one Akil Hussain. This land was used for the purposes of Qurbani. 

Since he opposed the performance of Qurbani on his land, the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Bilari, at the behest of local politicians and the Shaher Imam, summoned the appellant and his family to Police Station Bilari on January 20, 2003. They were pressurized to sell the property to the Shaher Imam for Qurbani. 

According to the appellant, in order to usurp the said property, the Shaher Imam of Bilari, in collusion with the district administration and under pressure exerted upon the local police, ensured that a series of false criminal cases were foisted against him.  

As many as eight FIRs were lodged against the appellant, including the present one, all of which, in substance, arose out of a civil dispute relating to ownership and possession of the property, the appellant's counsel said.  

In the FIR, the complainant alleged that he approached the appellant for a loan of Rs 2,00,000, but was allegedly advanced only Rs 1,40,000. It was further alleged that, in connection with the said transaction, an agreement to sell on November 09, 1998, was executed in respect of a plot owned by the complainant, and that the appellant procured three cheques from him, which, upon presentation, were dishonoured for insufficiency of funds. 

"Even if accepted in entirety, these allegations disclose, at best, a civil dispute and do not prima facie constitute the essential ingredients of the criminal offences alleged,'' the bench said.

Court also noted that prior to registration of the present FIR, the appellant had already initiated proceedings against the complainant under Section 138 of the N.I. Act and filed an FIR in 2002, in which, the complainant himself was arrested. 

"The present FIR was lodged nearly three months after the filing of the Section 138 complaint and seven months after 2002 FIR. The plea that the FIR is a retaliatory counterblast to the proceedings legitimately initiated by the appellant, therefore, carries substantial weight,'' the bench held.  

Court further pointed out that the mala fide nature of the complaint was further fortified by the fact that, by judgment on January 15, 2025, the trial court convicted the complainant in the present case under Section 138 of the N.I. Act, sentencing him to one month’s imprisonment and imposing a fine of Rs 90,000. 

"This conviction lends strong support to the appellant’s case that the initiation of the present FIR was a retaliatory measure, maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive to neutralise the lawful action taken by him,'' the bench said.   

The appellant's counsel contended that the investigation was conducted with apparent bias by the local police at the behest of local politicians and the district administration. 

Despite this background, the court noted, the police proceeded to file a charge sheet in 2003 against the appellant for offences under sections 420, 467, and 468 IPC. 

"Even if the allegations are assumed to be true, they unmistakably arise out of a commercial / contractual transaction relating to loan and repayment, which has been given a criminal colour,'' the bench said.

The bench pointed out that the apex court has, in a long line of decisions, deprecated the tendency to convert civil disputes into criminal proceedings. In Indian Oil Corporation Vs M/s NEPC India Ltd (2006), it was held that criminal law cannot be used as a tool to settle scores in commercial or contractual matters, and that such misuse amounts to abuse of process.

In Inder Mohan Goswami and another Vs State of Uttaranchal and others (2008), it was emphasised that criminal prosecution must not be permitted as an instrument of harassment or private vendetta. In Ganga Dhar Kalita v. State of Assam (2015), the top court again reiterated that criminal complaints in respect of property disputes of civil nature, filed solely to harass the accused or to exert pressure in civil litigation, constitute an abuse of process. 

In Shailesh Kumar Singh @ Shailesh R. Singh Vs State of Uttar Pradesh and others (July 14, 2025), the Supreme Court disapproved the practice of using criminal proceedings as a substitute for civil remedies, observing that money recovery cannot be enforced through criminal prosecution where the dispute is essentially civil. 

Quoting these judgments, the division bench allowed the appeals, while clarifying that this judgment, however, would not preclude the parties from pursuing civil remedies as may be available to them in accordance with law.  

Case Title: Anukul Singh Vs State of Uttar Pradesh And Anr

Bench: Justices B V Nagarathna and R Mahadevan