The Supreme Court, in a recent ruling, quashed the First Information Report (FIR) lodged against Shailesh Kumar Singh alias Shailesh R. Singh, co-founder and production head of Karma Media and Entertainment LLP, emphasizing that monetary recovery in a civil dispute cannot be pursued through criminal proceedings.
A bench comprising Justices J.B. Pardiwala and R. Mahadevan allowed the criminal appeal filed by Singh against the Allahabad High Court’s order dated March 7, 2025, which had directed the parties to mediation and ordered Singh to pay ₹25 lakh to the complainant as part of the mediation process.
Background of the Case
The appellant, Shailesh Kumar Singh, approached the Supreme Court challenging the Allahabad High Court’s refusal to quash the FIR registered under Sections 60(b), 316(2), and 318(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. The FIR was lodged by the fourth respondent, the informant, who runs Polaroid Media, a company engaged in media financing and co-production.
Singh contended before the High Court that the dispute arose from an oral commercial agreement between the two companies, and the allegations made no case of criminal offence. He argued that the FIR was an abuse of the criminal justice system to pressurize him in what was essentially a commercial disagreement.
Arguments Before the Supreme Court
Appearing for the appellant, advocate Sana Raees Khan submitted that the FIR was nothing but an attempt to criminalize a civil dispute. The informant, represented by advocate Anand Mishra, argued that the appellant owed money as per their agreement, while the State of Uttar Pradesh, represented by advocate Shaurya Krishna, supported the High Court’s mediation direction.
The Supreme Court specifically examined the relevant provisions of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, namely Section 60(b) (concealing design to commit offence punishable with imprisonment), Section 316(2) (criminal breach of trust), and Section 318(2) (cheating).
Court’s Analysis
The bench questioned how the FIR disclosed any cognizable offence and how the element of cheating was made out. It observed that even if the appellant owed money under the oral agreement, there was no prima facie material to show that he had the intention to cheat the complainant from the beginning.
Referring to the Supreme Court decision in Delhi Race Club (1940) Limited vs. State of Uttar Pradesh (2024) 10 SCC 690, the bench reiterated the well-settled principle that to constitute cheating, there must be fraudulent or dishonest intention at the inception of the transaction.
The Court expressed concern over the High Court’s approach, stating:
“Why should the High Court make an attempt to help the complainant to recover the amount due and payable by the accused? It is for the Civil Court or Commercial Court as the case may be to look into in a suit that may be filed for recovery of money or in any other proceedings, be it under the Arbitration Act, 1996 or under the provisions of the IB Code, 2016.”
The Court further reminded that civil disputes cannot be converted into criminal cases, cautioning that such misuse amounts to an abuse of process of law.
The bench also noted that no civil suit or other recovery proceeding had been filed by the complainant as of the date of hearing.
Decision
Setting aside the High Court’s order, the Supreme Court held:
“We are quite disturbed by the manner in which the High Court has passed the impugned order. The High Court first directed the appellant to pay ₹25,00,000 to the respondent no.4 and thereafter directed him to appear before the Mediation and Conciliation Centre for the purpose of settlement. That’s not what is expected of a High Court to do in a Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution or a miscellaneous application filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.”
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, quashed the FIR, and clarified that the complainant was free to pursue any appropriate legal remedy before a civil court or any other competent forum for recovery of the alleged amount.
Case Title: Shailesh Kumar Singh Alias Shailesh R. Singh vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors.
Case No.: Criminal Appeal No. 2963 of 2025 (@ SLP (Crl.) No. 4880 of 2025)
