High Courts Duty Bound To Intervene Where Civil Disputes Are Given Criminal Colour: Supreme Court

The Court was hearing a criminal appeal against the judgment of the Allahabad High Court, which had dismissed the appellant’s petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking quashing of an FIR and the consequent chargesheet.

A Bench comprising Justice B.V. Nagarathna and Justice R. Mahadevan, while deciding the matter remarked that, “…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.”

Senior Advocate Anil Kaushik represented the petitioner, while Advocate Sudeep Kumar, AOR, appeared on behalf of the respondents.

Background

The dispute arose from land purchased by the appellant’s father, against which objections were raised. Following disputes, the appellant and his family were allegedly harassed at the behest of local politicians and police. Within a span of one week, eight FIRs were registered against him, including the present one, which alleged cheating and forgery in connection with a loan transaction and dishonoured cheques.

The appellant contended that the FIR was a counterblast to proceedings initiated by him against the complainant, in which the complainant had been arrested, and also to cases under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, in which the complainant was later convicted.

Court’s Observations

The Supreme Court, while hearing the matter, emphasised that the allegations, even if taken on their face value, disclosed only a commercial dispute and not any criminal offence. Stating that the High Court “misdirected itself in law by failing to apply the ratio laid down in Bhajan Lal”, the Apex Court observed that “initiation of the present criminal proceedings amounts to a clear abuse of the process of law”.

The Bench highlighted that eight FIRs were lodged against the appellant within a very short span of time, which, according to the Court, reflected a clear mala fide intent. The Court, while referring to Indian Oil Corporation v. NEPC India Ltd., stressed that “criminal law cannot be used as a tool to settle scores in commercial or contractual matters, and such misuse amounts to abuse of process.”

Furthermore, while relying on Suryalakshmi Cotton Mills Ltd v. Rajvir Industries Ltd, the Bench reiterated that, “where the defence relies upon unimpeachable, incontrovertible evidence of sterling quality – such as documents of undisputed authenticity – which ex facie demonstrate that continuation of criminal proceedings would be unjust and oppressive”, it would be appropriate for the High Court to intervene under its inherent jurisdiction.

The Bench, while applying the settled principles to the case at hand, concluded that the controversy was related to repayment of loan money and the alleged coercion in execution of documents was “purely civil in character”. The Bench emphasised that the registration of multiple FIRs in quick succession, despite the appellant having already initiated lawful proceedings, reinforced “the inference of mala fides.”

Conclusion

The Supreme Court, while remarking that "criminal law cannot be permitted to be misused for settling civil disputes or to wreak vengeance", set aside the Allahabad High Court’s order, quashed the FIR and the consequent charge sheet. The Court, however, clarified that the parties remain at liberty to pursue civil remedies as may be available in law.

Cause Title: Ankul Singh Versus The State of Uttar Pradesh and Another (Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 1153)

Appearances

Appellant: Senior Advocate Anil Kaushik, with Advocates Rajat Rana, Adv. Mayank Gautam, Shashi Sharma, Arunima Dwivedi, AOR.

Respondents: Advocates Sudeep Kumar, AOR, Manisha, Rupali.

Click here to read/download Judgment