SC Warns Against Misuse of Criminal Law, Quashes FIR
September 16, 2025
Supreme Court Warns Against Misuse of Criminal Law, Quashes Cheating FIR in Contract Dispute
Top Court says criminal law cannot be used to settle personal scores; civil remedies must be pursued in contractual disagreements
Five-year delay, vague allegations, and no proof of dishonest intent led to FIR being struck down
By Our Legal Correspondent
New Delhi, September 16, 2025 — The Supreme Court of India has delivered a strong message against the misuse of criminal law, quashing a cheating FIR that it found was filed to settle personal scores in a purely contractual dispute.
A bench of Justice B.V. Nagarathna and Justice R. Mahadevan ruled that criminal proceedings should not be used as a weapon for harassment when the matter is essentially civil in nature. The Court stressed that civil disputes must be resolved through civil remedies, and that invoking criminal law without the necessary ingredients of an offence undermines both justice and public trust.
The Case: From Business Deal to Criminal Allegations
The dispute dates back to 2017, when two businessman brothers — Paramjeet Singh and Sarabjit Singh — entered into a sale agreement with M/s Soma Stone Crusher for the supply of a sand ruula machine.
- The purchaser issued a cheque for ₹5 lakh, which was later stopped.
- A cheque dishonour case under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act was filed in 2018.
- Nearly five years later, in 2023, the purchaser lodged an FIR alleging cheating and criminal conspiracy under Sections 420 and 120B of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), claiming the machine did not meet agreed specifications.
The Himachal Pradesh High Court refused to quash the FIR, prompting the brothers to approach the Supreme Court.
Supreme Court’s Findings
After reviewing the FIR, charge sheet, and case history, the Supreme Court found:
- No dishonest intent at the start — There was no evidence that the accused had fraudulent or dishonest intention when entering the agreement.
- Vague allegations — Claims about faulty machinery and failure to replace it did not meet the legal test for “dishonest inducement” under Section 420 IPC.
- Unexplained delay — The five-year gap between the transaction and the FIR raised doubts about the complainant’s motives.
- Civil remedy available — The complainant could have pursued damages through a civil suit instead of initiating criminal proceedings.
The Court concluded that the FIR was mala fide and an abuse of the criminal justice process.
Key Legal Principles Reaffirmed
The judgment reinforces several important principles:
- Breach of contract ≠ cheating — As held in Vesa Holdings P. Ltd. v. State of Kerala (2015), only deception at the inception of a contract can amount to cheating.
- Mens rea is essential — Criminal intent cannot be presumed; it must be proven with specific facts.
- Delay weakens credibility — Unexplained delays in filing criminal complaints can indicate ulterior motives.
- Civil vs. criminal remedies — Civil disputes should not be dressed up as criminal cases to pressure the other party.
The Court also cited State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal (1992), which lists categories of cases where criminal proceedings can be quashed to prevent abuse of process.
Court’s Observations
In a strongly worded statement, the bench said:
“Criminal law ought not to become a platform for initiation of vindictive proceedings to settle personal scores and vendettas. The appellants could not be attributed any mens rea and therefore the allegations levelled by the prosecution are unsustainable.”
The judges warned that allowing such prosecutions would create divisions, erode trust, and burden an already strained judicial system.
Impact of the Ruling
Legal experts say the decision will help curb the growing trend of using criminal complaints as a pressure tactic in business disputes.
- For businesses — It offers protection against harassment through false criminal cases in contractual matters.
- For courts — It reduces unnecessary criminal trials, freeing resources for genuine cases.
- For individuals — It safeguards the right to liberty by preventing wrongful prosecution.
Similar Past Rulings
The Supreme Court has repeatedly cautioned against the misuse of criminal law:
- In Inder Mohan Goswami v. State of Uttaranchal (2007), it warned against using criminal prosecution as a tool for harassment.
- In Vishal Noble Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh (2024), it expressed concern over criminal proceedings being initiated for vested interests.
This latest ruling continues that line of reasoning, making it clear that criminal law is not a substitute for civil litigation.
The Final Order
The Supreme Court:
- Allowed the appeals of Paramjeet Singh and Sarabjit Singh.
- Quashed the FIR and charge sheet.
- Reaffirmed that the complainant is free to pursue civil remedies.
The judgment is expected to be cited in future cases where contractual disputes are escalated into criminal allegations without proof of fraudulent intent.
Conclusion
The ruling in Paramjeet Singh v. State of Himachal Pradesh is a clear warning: criminal law is not a tool for settling personal or business grudges. By quashing the FIR, the Supreme Court has reinforced the principle that justice must be fair, not vindictive, and that civil disputes belong in civil courts.
ALSO READ POPULAR ARTICLES
Kerala HC to Send Case Updates via WhatsApp from Oct 6
SC Upholds Tender Sanctity, Bars Post-Bid Corrections
SC: No Counterclaims After Issues Framed or on Co-Defendant
SC: Beggars’ Homes Are Constitutional Trusts, Ensure Dignity
SC Pauses Key Parts of Waqf Amendment Act 2025