On April 7, the Supreme Court strongly criticized the Uttar Pradesh Police for frequently converting civil disputes into criminal cases, describing this trend as a “complete breakdown of the Rule of Law.” The apex court warned that if such practices persist, the State of Uttar Pradesh could face financial penalties.

The bench, consisting of Chief Justice Sanjiv Khanna, Justice Sanjay Kumar, and Justice KV Viswanathan, was hearing a plea to quash an FIR against a petitioner accused of criminal breach of trust, criminal intimidation, and conspiracy. The petitioner was already facing proceedings under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act for cheque dishonour.

Upon examining the case, the Court observed that the dispute was clearly civil in nature, related to repayment of money, and no criminal offence could be made out.

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

The Court expressed concern that the summoning order itself was legally flawed, as failure to return money does not constitute a criminal offence.

In a stern tone, the Chief Justice verbally indicated that contempt proceedings may be initiated against the Investigating Officer (IO) for failing to comply with previous directions issued in the case of Sharif Ahmed v. State of Uttar Pradesh.

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

In the Sharif Ahmed case, a bench comprising Justice Khanna and Justice SVN Bhatti had made it mandatory for Investigating Officers to provide complete and clear details in the chargesheet. It emphasized that the chargesheet must clearly mention what crime has been committed by each accused, and what evidence supports the charges.

The ruling also required that:

• Statements recorded under Section 161 of the CrPC must be attached with the list of witnesses.
• The specific role of each accused should be mentioned separately and clearly.

The current bench pointed out that the IO failed to justify how the matter amounted to a criminal case.

The CJI stated:
"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 State Counsel argued that the petitioner did not approach the High Court to quash the FIR. But the Court was not inclined to accept this point.

CJI remarked:
"It's strange that it's happening day in and day out in UP. Lawyers have forgotten there is some civil jurisdiction also."

The CJI also highlighted that enforcement of the Sharif Ahmed judgment is critical and suggested that the Deputy General of Police should take responsibility.

When the State Counsel sought time to provide the official citation of the Sharif Ahmed decision, the Court allowed it but also made it clear that compliance was not optional.

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

When the matter was taken up later in the day, the bench passed the following directions:

Court Order Highlights:

• The chargesheet, summoning order, and cognisance order in this case are contrary to the Sharif Ahmed judgment.
• The DGP of UP and the Station House Officer / Investigating Officer must file an affidavit showing compliance with the directions issued in the Sharif Ahmed case.
• The affidavit must be filed within two weeks.
• Proceedings in the Trial Court will remain stayed against all accused in this matter.
• Section 138 NI Act proceedings (not part of this petition) will continue as per law.

When the State Counsel requested that the Court limit its direction to only the DGP, the Chief Justice strongly responded:

"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. If it is not being done (compliance), then costs are going to be imposed to ensure that there is compliance."

Finally, the bench emphasized that the DGP must clearly state the steps taken towards implementing the directions issued in the Sharif Ahmed judgment.

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