Growing Tendency Among People To Convert Civil Disputes Into Criminal Cases, SPs Should Intervene To Protect Innocent Persons: Madhya Pradesh High Court

Observing that there is a growing tendency among people to convert civil disputes into a criminal case, the Madhya Pradesh High Court has said that the Superintendent of Police in such cases should intervene with the help of District Prosecution Officer and must come out with some course correction so that innocent may not be targeted.

The court requested D.G.P. & Director (Prosecution) to apprise the Inspector General of all zones, Superintendent of Police of all Districts and District Public Prosecutors to act proactively in this regard.

"There is growing tendency amongst the people to convert Commercial/Transactional/Property related/ Partnership/ Arbitration/ Family/Matrimonial/Medical Negligence related disputes into criminal prosecution so that accused may succumb to the wrath of procedure involved in the criminal cases and settle the matter which otherwise is the domain of Civil Courts," said Justice Anand Pathak.

It added that when the case could have been settled through Arbitration or Civil proceedings or through Mediation but instead of going for that, vested interests or complainant directly approach the Police Stations for filing complaints and those complaints are readily accepted by the police "despite the fact that exceptions have been carved out by the Apex Court in the case of Lalita Kumari Vs. Government of U.P. and others, (2014) 2 SCC 1 in which, in certain cases preliminary enquiry were contemplated/directed."

The court said it is "expected" from the Superintendent of Police of every District that they would cooperate with the District Prosecution Officers and would undertake periodic appraisal of pending charge-sheets specifically in those cases where civil disputes are tried to be converted into criminal prosecution.

"Purpose is to convey that Police Officers and Prosecution must remain on same page and it is expected that Investigating Officer and Station House Officer of Police Stations would not abandon the cause once charge-sheet is filed and they will keep in touch with the Prosecutors regularly for early conclusion of trial," said the court.

The bench also said that it is the duty of Magistrate to look into the allegations and if he is not satisfied with the investigation then he should refer the matter for further investigation, specifically in the matters where civil disputes are tried to be converted into criminal prosecution. 

"This Court does not mandate that in all cases, S.P. and D.P.O. should exonerate the accused or trial Court to order for re-investigation. But in large number of cases people are implicated falsely. Therefore, it is their solemn duty to protect innocent persons," said the court.

These observations were made by the bench in its decision on a plea seeking quashing of an FIR under Section 420, 467, 468, 471, and 34 of IPC, related to property dispute dating back to 1987. Quashing the FIR, the court said the lodging of criminal complaint after 34 years is nothing but an attempt by complainant to turn the civil case into criminal liability.

"'Chaos has come again' — Oft repeated quote from Othello suites the present set of facts. Petitioners/accused are facing investigation for last 2 years (since 07- 07-2021) when the complaint was filed and incidentally neither charge-sheet is being filed nor Khatma report," said the bench.

Referring to Police Regulation 518 and 775-A of M.P. Police Regulations, the bench said, “Station House Officer and Investigating Officer of the Police Station as well as District Prosecution Officer/Public Prosecutor were required to be vigilant because allegations have all the trappings of civil liability and tried to be converted into criminal offence.”

The court further said that the District Prosecution Officer ought to have been vigilant and proactive and they should have given an honest opinion regarding the correct facts and outcome of the case.

“Nowadays, it is seen (many a times) that initially case is registered under Sections 406 and 420 of IPC and thereafter offences under Sections 467, 468 and 471 of IPC are added so as to take the matter out of the purview of benefits flowing to the accused from the judgment of Arnesh Kumar Vs. State of Bihar and another ... because for Sections 406 and 420 of IPC maximum punishment is 7 years, therefore, accused gets the benefit of notice under Section 41-A of Cr.P.C. Therefore, to make it complicated (rather draconian), Station House Officer and Investigating Officer create cobweb for ulterior motive,” it added.

The court said it is the duty of Superintendent of Police of District as per Police Regulation to supervise such type of mischief going on in police stations in his district.

"Superintendent of Police of district is required to be more vigilant and is meant to ensure that investigations of criminal cases proceed in Just and Fair manner. In those cases where civil dispute is tried to be converted into criminal allegations, then the Superintendent of Police should intervene with the help of District Prosecution Officer and they must come out for course correction so that innocent may not be targeted," it added.

Case Title: Shrichand Bhau & Ors. V. State of MP

Advocate Sameer Kumar appeared for the petitioner and AG Ravindra Singh for State.

Click Here To Read/Download Order