The Supreme Court of India quashed an FIR lodged against film producer Shailesh Kumar Singh and expressed dismay over the Allahabad High Court’s decision to impose a payment of ₹25 lakh as a condition for mediation. The apex court emphasized that criminal law cannot be used to resolve civil disputes, reaffirming that the judiciary must act within the established legal framework.
The appeal, filed by Singh, challenged the High Court's March 7, 2025 order, which not only referred the case to mediation but also asked the appellant to hand over ₹25 lakh to the complainant. The dispute arose from an oral business agreement between Singh's company, Karma Media and Entertainment LLP, and the complainant’s company, Polaroid Media.
“How many times the High Courts are to be reminded that to constitute an offence of cheating, there has to be something more than prima facie on record to indicate that the intention of the accused was to cheat the complainant right from the inception,” the Supreme Court observed.
Read also:- Supreme Court: Entire Appeal Fails If Legal Heirs of Deceased in Joint Decree Are Not Added in Time
The FIR, filed on January 9, 2025 at Hariparwat Police Station in Agra, invoked Sections 60(b), 316(2), and 318(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. It accused Singh of cheating and criminal breach of trust. However, the Supreme Court pointed out that the dispute was entirely civil in nature and did not disclose any criminal offence.
“Money cannot be recovered, more particularly, in a civil dispute between the parties by filing a First Information Report and seeking the help of the Police,” the Court noted, calling the FIR an “abuse of the criminal process.”
The bench comprising Justice J.B. Pardiwala and Justice R. Mahadevan stated that if any money was due under the oral agreement, the appropriate remedy lay in a civil suit, not in a criminal complaint.
Read also:- Supreme Court Questions BCI on Relaxing AIBE Fee for Poor Law Graduates
The apex court was especially critical of the High Court for converting a writ petition under Article 226 into a recovery tool.
“We are quite disturbed by the manner in which the High Court has passed the impugned order… That’s not what is expected of a High Court to do in a Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution,” the Court stated.
The judgment emphasized that the High Court’s order bypassed the well-settled principles laid down in the landmark State of Haryana vs. Bhajan Lal case (1992 Supp.(1) SCC 335), which guides courts on quashing of FIRs.
Read also:- SC Criticises High Courts for Granting Undue Interim Relief in SARFAESI Cases
Instead of determining whether the FIR made out a criminal offence, the High Court had directed the petitioner to participate in mediation — but only after paying ₹25 lakh upfront. The Supreme Court found this approach flawed and unjust.
“Why should the High Court make an attempt to help the complainant to recover the amount due and payable by the accused?”, the Court asked, stressing that this was a matter for a Civil or Commercial Court.
Ultimately, the Supreme Court quashed the FIR and clarified that the complainant was free to pursue civil remedies for recovery of the amount.
Read also:- SC Warns Centre: Expedite NIA Cases or Release Undertrials
“If the Respondent No.4 has to recover a particular amount, he may file a civil suit or seek any other appropriate remedy… He cannot be permitted to take recourse of criminal proceedings,” the Court ruled.
The appeal was allowed, and the Supreme Court strongly reiterated the boundary between civil disputes and criminal prosecution.
Case No. – Criminal Appeal No. 2963/2025
Case Title – Shailesh Kumar Singh Alias Shailesh R. Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors
Appellant (Shailesh Kumar Singh): Advocate Sana Raees Khan
Complainant (Respondent No. 4): Advocate Anand Mishra
State of Uttar Pradesh: Advocate Shaurya Krishna