India’s Supreme Court has unequivocally stated that judicial bodies are not to function as debt collection agencies. The court strongly condemned the growing practice of individuals transforming civil financial disagreements into criminal charges.
A bench comprising Justices Surya Kant and N. Kotiswar Singh highlighted that the threat of arrest should never be weaponized to recover outstanding debts. This, they noted, has become a concerning modern trend where people initiate criminal proceedings simply to expedite money recovery in what are fundamentally civil matters.
This critical stance emerged during a criminal case from Uttar Pradesh, where allegations of kidnapping were surprisingly linked to a dispute over money recovery.
Additional Solicitor General K.M. Nataraj, representing the Uttar Pradesh government, acknowledged the surge in such complaints. He described the police’s difficult position: they face criticism if they don’t register cases alleging cognizable offenses, yet are accused of bias and procedural impropriety if they do register cases that are primarily civil disputes.
Nataraj explained that typically, these complaints artfully frame a recovery of money dispute as a criminal offense.
Justice Kant expressed understanding for the police’s dilemma, noting that failure to register an FIR when a cognizable offense is alleged can lead to reprimand, citing the 2013 Lalita Kumar judgment of the Supreme Court.
The bench advised police to carefully assess whether a case is civil or criminal before making an arrest, warning that this misuse of criminal law poses a grave threat to the integrity of the justice system.
Justice Kant emphatically stated, “Courts are not recovery agents for the parties to recover outstanding amounts. This misuse of the judicial system cannot be allowed.” To address this, the Supreme Court proposed to Nataraj that states consider appointing a nodal officer for each district—ideally a retired district judge—who could offer expert consultation to the police. This officer would help determine whether a matter is civil or criminal, ensuring appropriate legal action.
The bench instructed Nataraj to gather feedback and report back to the court within two weeks.
The Supreme Court has consistently raised concerns recently about the emerging pattern of parties filing criminal cases in civil disputes, seemingly to achieve quicker resolution of their grievances.