In a stinging rebuke to the Uttar Pradesh Police, the Supreme Court on April 7, 2025, came down heavily on the recurrent and unlawful practice of converting civil disputes into criminal cases, declaring it indicative of a “complete breakdown of the Rule of Law” in the state. The court went so far as to warn that financial costs could be imposed on the UP government if such practices persist, underscoring the seriousness of its concern over the police’s blatant disregard for legal standards.
The bench comprising Chief Justice of India Sanjiv Khanna, Justice Sanjay Kumar, and Justice KV Viswanathan was hearing a plea seeking the quashing of an FIR that invoked charges of criminal breach of trust, criminal intimidation, and conspiracy—offences which, as per the Court’s observations, clearly arose out of a civil money dispute. Notably, the petitioner was already facing proceedings under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (cheque dishonour), and yet, the state police had layered additional criminal allegations without any legal basis.
As per the report of LiveLaw, expressing sharp disapproval, CJI Khanna had exclaimed, “This is wrong! What is happening in UP? Every day, civil suits are being converted to criminal cases. That’s not correct. That’s a breakdown of the Rule of Law completely.” The Court further declared the summoning order and chargesheet to be legally untenable, remarking that failure to repay a debt, by itself, cannot constitute a criminal offence. This is not only an egregious misuse of state power but also a deliberate distortion of criminal law to harass individuals in civil disputes.
Importantly, the Court also directed the Director General of Police (DGP), Uttar Pradesh, and the Investigating Officer (IO) to file affidavits within two weeks, explaining the steps taken to comply with the directives laid down in the landmark judgment Sharif Ahmed v. State of Uttar Pradesh (explained below). In that case, the Supreme Court had clearly mandated that chargesheets must contain precise, complete entries and that the investigating officer must distinctly outline the role of each accused, with supporting statements and documents. The Court had emphasised the necessity of these procedural safeguards to ensure that criminal prosecutions are not misused and remain grounded in substantive evidence.
Yet, despite these clear instructions, the UP Police appeared to have completely ignored these safeguards. The CJI, exasperated with the lack of accountability, even hinted at the initiation of contempt proceedings against the IO, stating, “We have made it clear that he has to detail it in the case diary; he has not submitted it. If the case diary is submitted, the IO will have to enter the witness box and say this is the case… Let the IO learn his lesson, this is not the way you file chargesheets.”
Even as counsel for the state sought to deflect responsibility by arguing that the petitioners had not first approached the High Court, the bench remained unconvinced. In a broader reflection on the state of legal practice in UP, the CJI lamented that lawyers seemed to have forgotten the existence of civil jurisdiction altogether, so routine has the misuse of criminal provisions become.
To make matters worse, when the state’s counsel sought a pass-over to find the correct citation of Sharif Ahmed, the bench granted it but not without a stern warning: if compliance is not demonstrated, costs will be levied directly on the UP Police. As per LiveLaw, the Court categorically ordered a stay on trial court proceedings against the accused, with the exception of the pending Section 138 NI Act proceedings, which were unrelated to the present petition.
The bench’s order leaves little ambiguity: “The order taking cognisance, the summoning order as well as the chargesheet filed is clearly contrary to the decision in Sharif Ahmed and others v. State of UP.” It also clarified that the DGP must submit an affidavit outlining steps taken to implement the earlier directives and ensure that such misuse is not repeated.
At a time when state police forces, particularly in Uttar Pradesh, have displayed alarming tendencies to criminalise civil disputes—often to harass individuals or settle scores—the Court has stepped in to reaffirm the boundaries between civil and criminal law. Its scathing observations, tough stance on accountability, and warning of costs signal an institutional intolerance for such arbitrary exercise of power. More importantly, this order reiterates the Court’s commitment to upholding procedural integrity and constitutional norms. The UP government, on the other hand, finds itself once again in the dock for fostering a legal culture that prioritises coercion over due process. The Supreme Court’s intervention in this case is not only timely but necessary—for justice, for precedent, and for the restoration of rule of law in a state where it appears to be fast eroding.
Previous instance of Supreme Court rebuking UP police for misusing criminal law in civil disputes
On November 28, 2024, the Supreme Court had delivered a sharp reprimand to the Uttar Pradesh Police for repeatedly turning civil disputes—especially land-related conflicts—into criminal cases. Hearing an anticipatory bail plea by an individual facing multiple FIRs tied to property issues, the Court warned that it would not hesitate to issue orders that the UP’s Director General of Police (DGP) would “remember for the rest of his life” if such misuse continued.
A bench comprising Justices Surya Kant and Ujjal Bhuyan had questioned the credibility of the numerous FIRs filed and the intent behind them. Appearing for the State, senior advocate Rana Mukherjee argued that the petitioner had not joined the investigation. However, the Court observed that the petitioner likely feared further false cases and arbitrary arrest. As per the report in LiveLaw, the bench had commented, “He must not be appearing because he knows you will register another false case and arrest him. Every time there is a new FIR—how many can the prosecution actually sustain?”
The bench had pointed out that accusing someone of land grabbing based on a legitimate property purchase through a registered sale deed was a clear misuse of criminal law. “Is it a civil dispute or a criminal one?” the Court asked, emphasising that the UP Police were crossing a line by treating civil disagreements as criminal matters.
The bench also addressed the systemic issue of police overreach. It cautioned that if this practice continued unchecked, the Court would impose strict action against the officers involved. When the State’s counsel attempted to shift responsibility, the Court made it clear that the issue lay with the conduct of the police and urged Mukherjee to ensure the message was conveyed clearly to the authorities.
In its interim direction, the Court permitted the petitioner to join the investigation but barred the police from arresting him without prior permission. The bench stated that any genuine need to arrest should first be justified before the Court. It also warned that officers acting in bad faith would face not only suspension but possibly more serious consequences.
To ensure transparency, the Court instructed the police to issue summons via mobile, clearly mentioning the date, time, and location for appearance before the Investigating Officer.
The Court’s intervention reflects growing concern over the casual criminalisation of civil matters in Uttar Pradesh. This case adds to a series of instances where the judiciary has had to step in to curb the misuse of police powers in the state.
The order may be read here.
Supreme Court guidelines on proper filing of chargesheets
In a judgment delivered on May 1, 2024, the Supreme Court laid down clear directions regarding the filing of charge sheets under Section 173(2) of the CrPC. The court stressed the importance of a well-drafted chargesheet for enabling a magistrate to take cognisance of an offence.
A bench of the then Justice Sanjiv Khanna and Justice SVN Bhatti had observed that investigating officers must ensure that every column of the chargesheet is filled with clarity and completeness. This is necessary for the court to clearly understand which accused is being charged with what offence and what evidence supports the allegations. The charge sheet must also include the list of witnesses along with their statements recorded under Section 161 of the CrPC. Importantly, the specific role played by each accused must be separately stated.
The bench criticised the widespread practice in some states where police merely reproduce the contents of the FIR and make a general remark on whether an offence appears to have been committed, without citing any supporting material. Such a practice, the court said, defeats the purpose of the chargesheet, which should serve as a basis for the magistrate to take informed decisions.
While the court clarified that the chargesheet need not go into a detailed evaluation of evidence—that being the purpose of the trial—it must at least include the reasons and grounds that led the investigating officer to conclude that an offence had been committed. These basic justifications would enable the magistrate to determine whether there is sufficient basis to take cognisance, issue summons, or frame charges.
The court emphasised that a chargesheet is not meant to be an exhaustive summary of the prosecution’s case, but it must reflect a serious and complete investigation. Based on this record, the magistrate exercises powers under Section 190(1)(b) and Section 204 CrPC. Where doubts arise, or if no offence is made out, the magistrate retains the discretion to choose other available options under the law.
To support its position, the court referred to the landmark case H.N. Rishbud and Inder Singh v. State of Delhi, which outlined the key components of an investigation: visiting the crime scene, fact-finding, making arrests, collecting evidence through witness interviews, searches and seizures, and forming an opinion on whether an offence has occurred.
Additionally, reliance was placed on the recent judgment in Dablu Kujur v. State of Jharkhand, where the court directed police officers across India to strictly comply with the mandatory provisions of Section 173(2) CrPC and the relevant State Police Manuals. Any failure to do so, the court said, will be viewed seriously by courts where the police report or chargesheet is filed.
Key guidelines laid down-
- Complete information required: Chargesheets must contain complete and clear entries in all columns to assist the Magistrate in understanding the offence, the accused’s role, and the supporting evidence.
- Specific attribution of roles: The role of each accused person must be clearly and separately indicated. General or vague allegations are not acceptable.
- Mandatory annexures: Statements recorded under Section 161 CrPC and a list of witnesses must be enclosed with the chargesheet.
- Avoid repetition of FIR: Merely copying the contents of the FIR is insufficient. The chargesheet must reflect the outcome of an independent investigation and present the evidence relied upon.
- Chargesheet to have sufficient grounds and reasons: While a detailed analysis of the evidence is not necessary, the chargesheet must contain sufficient grounds and reasons to justify the prosecution.
- Facilitating cognisance: The chargesheet is a crucial document that allows the Magistrate to decide whether to take cognisance, issue process, or dismiss the case under Sections 190(1)(b) and 204 CrPC.
- Reflect thorough investigation: Although not expected to be a comprehensive narration of the case, the report must reflect a serious and complete investigation.
- Magisterial discretion not affected: If the Magistrate finds the material insufficient, they may choose not to proceed with cognisance and exercise other available legal options.
- Investigation procedure reaffirmed: Referring to H.N. Rishbud v. State of Delhi, the Court reiterated that investigation includes visiting the scene, ascertaining facts, making arrests, collecting evidence, and forming an opinion on whether an offence is made out.
- Strict compliance required: Citing Dablu Kujur v. State of Jharkhand, the Court directed that police officers must strictly adhere to Section 173(2) CrPC and the State Police Manual. Failure to comply will be viewed seriously by the courts.
The judgment may be read here.
Related:
Black Armbands, State Crackdown: UP targets Muslims for peaceful protest against Waqf Act