The Supreme Court highlighted that police lack the authority to collect money and emphasized the importance of recognizing the differences between civil and criminal matters. In a recent ruling, the Court underscored that while handling legal cases, it is crucial not to overlook the distinctions between civil and criminal wrongdoings. This clarification came as the Court addressed the issue of police involvement in monetary recovery, stressing the need to adhere to legal boundaries and principles.
NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court recently emphasized that police lack the authority to engage in monetary recovery or act as a civil court post unsuccessful civil proceedings.
Justices Sanjiv Khanna and Justice Dipankar Datta emphasized the distinction between breach of contract and criminal offenses, highlighting that non-payment of money or breach of contract are civil matters distinct from criminal wrongdoing.
The Supreme Court reiterated that the police’s role is limited to investigating criminal acts, not recovering money or acting as a civil court.
The Supreme Court’s remarks arose during the dismissal of a criminal complaint and subsequent proceedings against an accused. The chargesheet alleged criminal breach of trust, criminal intimidation, and cheating after a contract between the accused and the complainant collapsed.
Senior Advocate Rajul Bhargava, along with advocates Atul Kumar, Abhimanyu Sharma, Deepali, Pulak Bagchi, Chander Kiran, and Tarun Gupta, represented the accused. Advocates Rajat Singh, Abhishek Singh, Sarthak Chandra, and Arun Pratap Singh Rajawat appeared for the Uttar Pradesh Government, while advocates Gautam Das, Sanjeev Kumar Punia, Dhirendra Kumar Jha, and Rajinder Singh Chauhan represented the complainant.
READ ALSO: CBI to Challenge Pandher and Koli’s Acquittal in Nithari Killings Case at Supreme Court
“It is one thing to say that a case has been made out for trial and criminal proceedings should not be quashed, but another thing to say that a person must undergo a criminal trial despite the fact that no offence has been made out in the complaint,”
it stated
Despite the Supreme Court’s refusal to dismiss the criminal case, the apex court expressed that its judgments differentiating criminal and civil offenses were often disregarded instead of implemented.
The Supreme Court emphasized that while some cases may warrant trial and criminal proceedings should proceed, individuals should not be subjected to criminal trials if no offense is evident in the complaint.
The chargesheet clearly shows that no criminal case is made out against the accused, it added.
“No details and particulars are mentioned … In this case entrustment is missing, in fact it is not even alleged. It is a case of sale of goods.”
The Court determined that the criminal case was initiated solely to involve the police in money recovery case, alleged such practices as legally unsound. Consequently, it reversed the High Court’s decision and dismissed all criminal proceedings in the matter.
CASE TITLE: Lalit Chaturvedi and ors vs State of Uttar Pradesh and anr.
READ ORDER: