'Does the state have rule of law or not?' Supreme Court asks UP Police

SC condemns UP Police for converting civil money matters into criminal cases, warning of a complete breakdown of the rule of law if such misuse continues

In a sharp rebuke to the Uttar Pradesh Police, the Supreme Court on Monday condemned the repeated misuse of criminal law to settle civil disputes, calling it a “complete breakdown of the rule of law”. The top court expressed serious concern over the growing trend of registering criminal cases to recover money in matters that are fundamentally civil in nature, reported The Hindustan Times.

 

A bench led by Chief Justice of India Sanjiv Khanna, and comprising Justices Sanjay Kumar and KV Viswanathan, made strong observations during a hearing related to a case from Noida. In that case, a first information report (FIR) was filed over a monetary transaction, which eventually led to a charge sheet and summoning order issued by the trial court.

 

 

“This is a breakdown of the rule of law. It’s not acceptable at all. Police cannot convert civil cases into criminal cases for recovery of money. How can UP Police keep doing this despite clear directions of this court? Does the state have a rule of law or not?” the bench questioned.

 

The Supreme Court stayed the trial court proceedings and ordered the Director General of Police (DGP), the Station House Officer (SHO), and the Investigating Officer (IO) involved in the case to submit affidavits within two weeks. They must explain why a criminal case was filed in a matter deemed to be civil.

 

“The summoning order and the charge sheet filed is contrary to the judgment of this court in Sharif Ahmad vs State of UP (2024). We will require the DGP, SHO and IO of the concerned police station to explain why they have not complied with the previous judgment of this court,” the bench added.

 

Appearing for the Uttar Pradesh government, senior counsel Garima Prashad said the DGP would present details of steps taken to comply with the court’s earlier rulings. However, the court remained unconvinced and hinted it may begin imposing costs on the police department if such practices continue.

 

“Civil cases cannot be converted into criminal cases just to force someone to part with money. Does the state have civil laws and procedures or does everything have to be converted to criminal cases?” the bench asked.

 

The Chief Justice also criticised the quality of police investigations and the filing of charge sheets that often lack substance.

 

“We are directing the IO to file his affidavit to explain how he filed a charge sheet in a case like this. And what is this charge sheet? Just a reproduction of the FIR? Will you invoke criminal charges just to force someone to pay back? Since when did giving or taking back money become a matter of criminal trials?” he said.

 

Pointing out that this is not an isolated case, the bench warned of strict consequences.

 

“This is not an isolated instance. We will start imposing costs on the police department in the state for each such case that comes before this court,” the bench cautioned.

 

The court’s strong words come in the backdrop of its 2024 verdict in the Sharif Ahmad vs State of UP case. In that landmark ruling, the bench, including Justice Khanna and Justice SVN Bhatti, laid down clear guidelines to differentiate civil disputes from criminal offences. The court had criticised the practice of filing vague, copy-paste charge sheets with no real investigation.

 

That judgment emphasised that charge sheets filed under Section 173(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) must contain material evidence sufficient to establish a prima facie case for trial. Simply repeating the FIR’s allegations without proper scrutiny or independent verification is not enough, the court had said.

 

The ruling also clarified that regular commercial or financial transactions, such as failure to refund money or fulfil agreements, do not automatically qualify as criminal breach of trust (Section 406 IPC), unless there is clear evidence of entrustment.

 

Similarly, the offence of cheating (Section 420 IPC) requires proof of fraudulent intent at the time of entering the contract, not just a failure to perform it later. For criminal intimidation (Section 506 IPC), the court said there must be credible evidence of intent to threaten or cause alarm.