The Supreme Court on Monday cautioned against the growing practice of converting civil disputes into criminal proceedings, observing that courts cannot function as “recovery agents” for private parties.
A bench of Justices Surya Kant and N Kotiswar Singh, while hearing a case from Uttar Pradesh, said the threat of arrest should not be used as a tool for recovering money in purely civil matters. The bench noted with concern that kidnapping charges were alleged in a monetary recovery dispute, reflecting a disturbing trend of misusing criminal law.
The court stressed that this practice poses a “serious threat to the justice delivery system.” Justice Surya Kant remarked:
“Courts are not recovery agents for the parties to recover outstanding amounts. This misuse of the judicial system cannot be allowed.”
The bench advised the police to carefully assess whether a complaint pertains to a civil or criminal matter before making arrests.
Additional Solicitor General K.M. Nataraj, appearing for the Uttar Pradesh government, admitted that such cases place police in a difficult position. He explained that if the police refuse to register an FIR despite allegations of a cognisable offence, courts cite the Lalita Kumari judgment (2013) to hold them accountable. Conversely, if they register such FIRs, they are accused of bias or misuse of power.
Justice Kant acknowledged the dilemma, but stressed that law enforcement must apply its mind to prevent criminal law from being used as a tool of harassment in civil disputes.
Proposal for District-Level Oversight
To curb such misuse, the bench suggested that states appoint a nodal officer in each district, preferably a retired district judge, who can guide police on whether a complaint relates to a civil or criminal matter before further action is taken.
The court directed ASG Nataraj to seek instructions from the state government and apprise the bench within two weeks.
The Supreme Court has repeatedly flagged this issue in recent months, noting a rise in complaints where parties deliberately lodge criminal cases in order to speed up resolution of financial disputes. The bench reiterated that such practices undermine the purpose of criminal law and erode faith in the judicial process.
