'What's Happening In UP? Complete Breakdown Of Rule Of Law' : Supreme Court Slams Police For Converting Civil Disputes Into Criminal Cases

The Supreme Court today (April 7) expressed displeasure at the recurrent instances of civil disputes being turned into criminal cases by the Uttar Pradesh Police and termed it a 'complete breakdown of the Rule of Law'. It also warned that costs may be imposed on the State of UP if such a practice continued

The Court also directed the Director General of Police, UP, to file an affidavit on the steps taken to comply with the directions of the Court in Sharif Ahmed v. State of Uttar Pradesh, where the Court held it mandatory for the Investigating Officer to ensure that the chargesheet contains clear and complete entries.

The bench of CJI Sanjiv Khanna, Justice Sanjay Kumar and Justice KV Viswanathan was hearing a plea to quash an FIR registered against the petitioner accused of criminal breach of trust, criminal intimidation, and criminal conspiracy. 

The petitioner was facing proceedings for cheque dishonour under Section 138 NI Act apart from the above charges for allegedly failing to return certain sums of money to the complainants. 

Noting that the criminal case was essentially with respect to a civil transaction, the CJI rebuked the UP Police over the trend of wrongfully converting disputes of civil nature into criminal cases. He expressed that the summoning order itself was legally incorrect as no offence can be made for returning a due sum of money. 

CJI said : "This is wrong! What is happening in UP? Everyday civil suits are being converted to criminal cases. That's not correct! That's break down of rule of law completely!" 

Initially, the bench verbally remarked that it may initiate contempt proceedings against the Investigating Officer for not complying with the Apex Court's directions in Sharif Ahmed and others vs State of Uttar Pradesh. 

"And I'm going to haul up,probably initiate contempt proceedings against the IO (Investigating Officer)," CJI warned. 

Notably, in the decision in Sharif Ahmed, the bench of Justice Khanna and Justice SVN Bhatti held that the investigating officer must make clear and complete entries of all columns in the chargesheet so that the court can clearly understand which crime has been committed by which accused and what is the material evidence available on the file.

The Court also held that Statements under Section 161 of the Code and related documents have to be enclosed with the list of witnesses. The role played by the accused in the crime should be separately and clearly mentioned in the chargesheet, for each of the accused persons.

Considering the observations in Sharif Ahmed, the CJI stressed that IO is required to justify how a criminal case could be made out in the present facts. He said: 

"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. ....it's absurd, merely not giving money cannot be turned into an offence....I will ask the IO to come to the witness box ....let the IO stand in the witness box and make out the case of crime .....we will direct it, let him learn his lesson, this is not the way you file chargesheets." 

The Counsel for the state of U.P. informed the bench that the petitioners had not pressed for quashing of the FIR before the High Court. 

However, the CJI, seemingly disinclined to accept that submission, observed : 

"It's strange that it's happening day in and day out in U.P.,  Lawyers have forgotten there is some civil jurisdiction also." 

Referring to the directions in the Sharif Ahmad Case, the CJI further said "I am also gonna ask the Deputy General of Police to take initiative in this ...this is wrong, it has to be simply enforced." 

When the Counsel for the state of UP sought a pass over to get the proper citation of the Sharif Ahmad Case, the CJI granted so while verbally mentioning : 

"I'm going to ask the DGP to file an affidavit, what is to be done after that... and case which is now coming, we are going to impose costs not on anybody else but on the Police." 

When the matter was taken up again, the bench ordered the DGP of UP and the IO of the case to file an affidavit before the Court clarifying their stance and stating whether compliance was made in the directions in the Sharif Ahmad decision. 

The following order was passed : 

"The order taking cognisance, the summoning order as well as the chargesheet filed is clearly contrary to the decision in Sharif Ahmed and other v. State of UP."

"In view of the aforesaid position, we would require the Director General of Police of UP as well as the SHO/ IO of the police station to file an affidavit showing compliance with the directions given in the judgment." 

"The affidavit may be filed within 2 weeks, the proceedings in Trial Court will remain stayed against all accused.... We clarify that proceedings u/s 138 NIA, which are not the subject matter of the present petition, shall continue." 

When the Counsel for UP urged the Court to only limit the order to the DGP on the steps taken in the decision, the CJI replied that it was imperative for the UP State to comply with the directions in Sharif Ahmad else costs may be imposed on the State.  

"Let them file the affidavit, this is a complete breakdown of the rule of law...this converting of civil matters into criminal matters is not acceptable, and if it is not being done(compliance) then costs are going to be imposed to ensure that there is compliance." CJI said. 

The bench clarified that the DGP is required to state the steps taken towards compliance of the Sharif Ahmad Decision. 

The matter will now be heard in May. 

Case Details : DEBU SINGH AND ANR. Versus THE STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH AND ANR.| SLP(Crl) No. 3620/2025

Click Here To Read/Download Order