'How Many Times Must HCs Be Reminded What Cheating Means?': SC
The Supreme Court has quashed an FIR against Shailesh Kumar Singh, co-founder of Karma Media and Entertainment LLP, questioning the legality and propriety of the High Court’s direction that he pay Rs. 25 lakh as a precondition for mediation in what the apex court described as a “purely civil dispute".
A bench of Justices J.B. Pardiwala and R. Mahadevan expressed “deep anguish” over the March 2025 order passed by the High Court, which, while hearing a plea to quash the FIR, directed Singh to appear for mediation and simultaneously hand over a demand draft of Rs. 25,00,000 to the complainant.
“We are quite disturbed by the manner in which the High Court has passed the impugned order,” the bench said, pointing out that such directions are not consistent with what is expected in writ petitions under Article 226 or applications under Section 482 CrPC.
The FIR in question was lodged on January 9, 2025, at Hariparwat Police Station in Agra under Sections 60(b), 316(2), and 318(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. It was filed by a businessman operating under the name Polaroid Media, who had allegedly entered into an oral agreement with Singh for financing a media project.
Calling out the High Court’s failure to appreciate settled law, the Supreme Court underlined that an offence of cheating requires more than just a prima facie claim, there must be clear indication that the accused intended to deceive the complainant from the outset. In this case, the Court observed, the FIR did not reflect any such criminal intent.
“We called upon the respondent’s counsel to explain how the FIR discloses a cognizable offence or how his client was cheated. What we understood is that there’s an oral agreement, at best a civil dispute, not a criminal one,” the bench noted.
The apex court further reminded the High Court of the principles laid down in State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal (1992), and more recently reiterated in Delhi Race Club (1940) Ltd. v. State of U.P. (2024), stressing that criminal law cannot be used as a shortcut to recover civil dues.
“It is not for the High Court to help the complainant recover his money through such means. That is the job of a Civil or Commercial Court, or tribunals under the Arbitration Act or IBC,” the bench stated.
Noting that no civil suit for recovery had been filed by the complainant till date, the bench said, “Money cannot be recovered through police machinery in a civil dispute. This is a classic case of abuse of criminal process".
Ultimately, the Supreme Court quashed the FIR and allowed the complainant the liberty to seek appropriate civil remedies under law.
Case Title: Shailesh Kumar Singh @ Shailesh R Singh Vs State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors
Judgment Date: July 14, 2025
Bench: Justices J.B. Pardiwala and R. Mahadevan