The Supreme Court observed that machinery of criminal law cannot be permitted to be misused for settling civil disputes or to wreak vengeance.
The division bench of Justice B.V. Nagarathna and Justice R. Mahadevan stated that 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.
Background
According to the appellant, his father Shri Netrapal Singh purchased land admeasuring 8.592 hectares, situated in Khasra Nos. 18, 19, 20, 21 and 22 of Village Sherpur Mafi, Tehsil Bilari, District Moradabad from one Akil Hussain by a registered sale deed.
After the purchase, the appellant’s father applied for mutation of the property in his favour. The vendor Akil Hussain did not raise any objection before the Tehsildar. However, the Shaher Imam of Bilari with mala fide intent to usurp the property, filed objections alleging that the land was being used for Qurbani. The Tehsildar, Bilari, by order, rejected the objections and directed mutation in favour of the appellant’s father.
The appellant further averred that, 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. They were pressured to sell the property to the Shaher Imam for Qurbani.
It was also averred that, thereafter, the local police, acting at the behest of the District Administration and local politicians, falsely implicated the appellant in eight FIRs within a span of one week.
In the present case, Respondent complainant alleged that he had approached the appellant for a loan of Rs.2,00,000/-, but was advanced only Rs.1,40,000 and was compelled to execute an agreement to sell in respect of his plot. It was further alleged that the appellant coerced him to issue three cheques in favour of the appellant, Netrapal Singh and Lakhpat Singh, which, upon presentation, were dishonoured for insufficiency of funds. Pursuant thereto, a charge sheet was filed against the appellant.
Submissions
Senior Counsel appearing for the appellant submitted that the FIR and the charge sheet are a gross abuse of the process of law. Even if the allegations in the FIR are taken at their face value, they disclose at best a civil dispute for which the complainant ought to have sought redressal before the appropriate civil court. The appellant is not even a signatory to the alleged agreement to sell, which the complainant claimed to have executed under coercion.
Senior Counsel contended that the High Court erred in holding that the appellant’s submissions constituted defence evidence which could not be examined at the stage of Section 482 proceedings.
Advocate General appearing for the State submitted that upon lodging of FIR dated 05.02.2003 in Case Crime No. 47 of 2003, under Sections 420, 467 and 468 IPC, Police Station Bilari, District Moradabad, the matter was duly investigated. After collecting sufficient material, the Investigating Officer submitted a charge sheet against the appellant herein.
It was further pointed out that, the Superintendent of Police, Moradabad, submitted a report before the High Court detailing the status of all eight criminal cases registered against the appellant.
It was urged that the appellant invoked the jurisdiction of the High Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking quashing of the charge sheet and consequential proceedings in Case Crime No. 47 of 2003 on the ground that the police had filed the charge sheet merely on suspicion. However, at the stage of submission of charge sheet, the Court is only required to examine the investigation papers and documents collected by the police. Any defence of the accused is a matter of trial and cannot be considered at this stage. Consequently, the High Court rightly declined to entertain the appellant’s plea as evaluation of defence materials falls outside the scope of Section 482 proceedings.
Observation
The bench stated that it is well established that though the High Court possesses wide and plenary inherent jurisdiction, such power is not unbridled or unlimited, but circumscribed by self-imposed restraints evolved through judicial pronouncements.
The court further stated that the categories in Bhajan Lal case are illustrative and not exhaustive, but they provide guiding principles to balance two competing considerations – (a)preventing abuse of process of law, and (b)ensuring that criminal proceedings are not stifled at the threshold on disputed questions of fact.
Equally, the Court has consistently cautioned that the High Court, while exercising jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C., cannot embark upon a “minitrial” or weigh the sufficiency of evidence, which falls within the domain of the trial Court. The scope of enquiry is confined to whether, on a plain reading of the FIR / complaint and accompanying material, the ingredients of the alleged offence are disclosed. [ Rajiv Thapar v. Madal Lal Kapoor, HMT Watches v. Abida, and Rathish Babu Unnikrishnan v. the State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) and others].
The court said that an exception has been recognized 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. This principle was recognized in Suryalakshmi Cotton Mills Ltd v. Rajvir Industries Ltd, and followed in subsequent decisions.
Thus, the bench observed that the cumulative principles that emerge are, 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.
The court further observed that initiation of the criminal proceedings, amounts to a clear abuse of the process of law, squarely falling within the illustrative categories delineated in Bhajan Lal, particularly where the dispute is manifestly civil in nature and the prosecution is maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive.
The court added that 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 case thus falls squarely within categories (1) and (7) of Bhajan Lal, namely, where the allegations do not disclose the commission of an offence, and where the proceedings are maliciously instituted with an ulterior motive. Continuation of such prosecution would amount to an abuse of process of law and consequently, warrant quashing under Section 482 Cr.P.C.
The bench reiterated that In Indian Oil Corporation v. M/s. NEPC India Ltd., 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.
“The High Court, in refusing to quash the proceedings, misdirected itself in law by failing to apply the ratio laid down in Bhajan Lal, and the subsequent authorities referred to above, which uniformly hold that the machinery of criminal law cannot be permitted to be misused for settling civil disputes or to wreak vengeance”, the court observed.
The bench set aside the judgment of the High Court and quashed the FIR and the consequential charge sheet, pending before the trial Court.
Case Details
Case title: Anukul Singh Versus State Of Uttar Pradesh And Anr.
Citation: CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 4250 OF 2025
Date: September 24, 2025
