In a recent order, the Supreme Court made a stern remark against Uttar Pradesh Police officials, including the Director General of Police, for registering a first information report (FIR) in a pending civil dispute between the contesting parties.

In doing so, the police ignored the directions issued in Shariff Ahmed & Anr v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr, wherein it was held that “efforts to settle civil disputes and claims which do not involve any criminal offence, by way of applying pressure through criminal prosecution, should be deprecated and discouraged”.

However, it is not the first time that questions have been raised on how police officials operate when they receive a complaint in a case which is sub judice before a civil court. There have been a series of judgments where the Supreme Court has directly or indirectly put out guidelines to determine whether a civil case would or would not attract criminal provisions.

These judgments indicate how a crucial part of the system is not taking into account the basic idea of a crime and is painting cases that are essentially civil in nature with a criminal colour.

A decipherable pattern can be seen where a civil dispute pending between two parties usually ends up at the door of the police station, culminating in an FIR. The reason for this practice could be to settle scores, harassment of the other party, extortion, or arm-twisting to recover dues. The nature of most of these cases are mainly business transactions and family disputes.

The common sections usually seen in such FIRs are those of cheating, breach of trust, criminal intimidation, forgery, etc. During the pendency of almost all civil cases, an FIR is lodged with an intention to use the police in order to create pressure on the opposite party. In such cases, where the offence of cheating is invoked, the Supreme Court has held that cheating should be shown since the inception.

Despite this, cases of cheating are the most common instrument to give the case a criminal cloak.

The root cause of this recent fashion of turning a civil case into a criminal one is the lack of initiative taken by the police officials at the stage of registration of an FIR. The Supreme Court has persistently noticed that criminal proceedings are being taken recourse to as a weapon of harassment. It has also been noted that an offence has to be made out by the contents of the complaint. Additionally, the investigating officer has the duty to carefully scrutinise the documents, evidence and statements given by the complainant to separate the chaff from the wheat.

The Court laid down exhaustive guidelines as to how a report should be made by an official who is investigating the case. Often, the police officials forget to consider that a bare perusal of the allegations should carry the essential ingredients to constitute the alleged offences.

Although the courts have tried to rectify the situation, it seems that this trend is only gaining pace, which could either be attributed to the inertia of police officials to actually find the truest nature of the case, or to the lack of application of judicial mind by the magistrates.

A comprehensive training for the police officials includes a course on drafting of FIRs, writing of final reports, etc. However, it can still be seen that somehow, the concept of properly understanding evidence in the right context is misunderstood.

As much as the training of police officials in this regard is needed, it is also incumbent upon the magistrates to apply their judicial minds while taking cognizance of criminal matters which are essentially civil in nature.

Though there is no bar to institute a criminal proceeding even if civil cases are pending between the parties, the same has to be scrutinised by the police officials and thereafter by the trial courts, to ascertain whether or not the elements of criminality are present in the case.

It cannot be gainsaid that in order to prevent such abuse of judicial process, strict penalties should be imposed upon the erring individuals. Nevertheless, no one with an actual grievance should be prevented from seeking justice.

Advocate Yash Giri practices in the Supreme Court of India. Advocate Mehak Goswami is former law clerk at the Supreme Court of India.