Protecting Due Process: Supreme Court Warns Against Criminalising Civil Conflicts
The Supreme Court has time and again reinforced a critical principle: the line between civil and criminal law must not be blurred. Criminal remedies are meant for genuine criminal offences, not as pressure tactics in civil or commercial disputes.
Recently, in two separate matters, the Court stepped in to prevent civil or employment disputes from being painted with the brush of criminality:
In the case of, Madhushree Datta v. State of Karnataka & Anr. The complainant alleged that the appellants had forced her resignation under threat of dismissal, confiscated her belongings, harassed her, and unlawfully seized her intellectual property stored on the company’s laptop. Charges were filed under Sections 323, 504, 506, 509, and 511 of the IPC.
The Supreme Court noted that “the criminal proceedings were initiated with mala fide intentions, specifically to wreak vengeance, cause harm, or coerce a settlement.” It further held that there was a “deliberate attempt to reclassify the nature of the proceedings from non-cognizable to cognizable” purely to pressurize the appellants. The Court found the complaint bereft of even the basic facts necessary to make out a criminal offence.
In the case of , S. N. Vijayalakshmi & Ors. v. State of Karnataka & Anr. Here, a property buyer filed a civil suit for specific performance of an agreement while also lodging an FIR for cheating (Section 420 IPC) and criminal breach of trust (Section 406 IPC) against the landowners. Crucially, the FIR was filed only after property values had appreciated.
While the Karnataka High Court refused to quash the FIR, the Supreme Court set aside that order. It observed that civil disputes like breach of contract or property disagreements must be adjudicated through civil remedies, whereas criminal charges require proof of fraudulent intent at the very inception of the transaction. The Court condemned the attempt to “convert a civil dispute into a criminal case.”
Citing Paramjeet Batra v. State of Uttarakhand (2013), the Court reiterated: “If a civil remedy is available and is, in fact, adopted… the High Court should not hesitate to quash the criminal proceedings to prevent abuse of process.”
These judgments reaffirm a vital constitutional safeguard: criminal law is not a bargaining weapon. When disputes arise from employment relationships, contracts, property transactions, or commercial arrangements, they must be resolved through appropriate civil remedies, not criminal prosecution. The Supreme Court has made it clear that allegations lacking the essential ingredients of a criminal offence, where intent to cheat or commit a crime is absent, cannot be permitted to justify criminal proceedings. By quashing such cases, the Court has reinforced that the criminal justice system cannot be used to intimidate, coerce settlements, or gain undue advantage. In doing so, the judiciary continues to uphold the integrity of legal processes and protect individuals from the abuse of criminal law.
About Author:
Prachi Pratap is a lawyer practicing in various forums in India. She is also an educator and speaker.