The Supreme Court has recently reiterated its strong disapproval of using criminal law as a tool to settle personal scores or to exert pressure in civil disputes. The court has cautioned against the growing trend of filing First Information Reports (FIRs) in cases that are essentially civil in nature, emphasizing that this practice is a misuse of the legal process.
In a recent case, the Supreme Court quashed an FIR registered against two men under Section 420 (cheating) read with Section 120B (criminal conspiracy) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), highlighting that the FIR was lodged after a significant delay of nearly five years, raising doubts about the complainant's intentions. The court firmly stated that criminal law should not be a platform for initiating vindictive proceedings to settle personal vendettas. The Bench, comprising Justice B.V. Nagarathna and Justice R. Mahadevan, observed that the delay in lodging the FIR, coupled with vague allegations, did not inspire confidence to allow the criminal proceedings to continue against the accused.
The Supreme Court has also emphasized the duty of High Courts to intervene and prevent the abuse of legal processes, particularly when criminal proceedings are used to exert pressure in civil matters. The court has noted that the jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC) is extraordinary and must be exercised sparingly. However, it is the duty of the High Court to intervene where the continuation of criminal proceedings would amount to an abuse of the process of law, or where the dispute is purely of a civil nature and criminal color has been artificially given to it. Conversely, where disputed questions of fact arise requiring adjudication, the matter must ordinarily proceed to trial.
The court has also observed that the essential ingredients of offenses like cheating or forgery must be prima facie evident for criminal proceedings to be justified. The court has stated that even if the allegations are accepted in their entirety, if they disclose only a commercial or contractual dispute, and not a criminal offense, the criminal proceedings should not be allowed to continue.
Furthermore, the Supreme Court has also clarified that the offenses of cheating under Section 420 and criminal breach of trust under Section 406 of the IPC are antithetical to each other and cannot co-exist in the same set of facts. The court explained that cheating involves criminal intention from the beginning, while criminal breach of trust involves lawful entrustment at the beginning, which is later misappropriated.
The Supreme Court's recent pronouncements underscore its commitment to preventing the misuse of criminal law for settling personal scores or resolving civil disputes. The court has consistently held that criminal law should be invoked only in cases where there is a genuine criminal offense and not as a tool for harassment or vengeance. The High Courts have a crucial role in safeguarding against such abuse of process, and should not hesitate to intervene to quash criminal proceedings that are found to be malicious or frivolous. The apex court has made it clear that an individual should not be subjected to multiple FIRs in quick succession, particularly after the appellant had already initiated lawful proceedings, reinforces the inference of mala fides.
