Police's valuable time spent in investigating disputes suited for civil resolution: Supreme Court

The Supreme Court on Monday bemoaned the time wasted by the police in probing criminal cases that ideally ought to be decided through civil proceedings. (Deepak Kumar Shrivas and anr v. State of Chhattisgarh and ors).A Bench of Justices Vikram Nath and Satish Chandra Sharma noted that the same was all the more true in cases involving private parties levelling allegations of financial impropriety against each other."It becomes evident that the police finds itself entangled in the irrelevant and trivial details of...unethical private issues, diverting the resources away from the pursuit of more consequential matters. The valuable time of the police is consumed in investigating disputes that seem more suited for civil resolution. This underscores the need for a judicious allocation of law enforcement resources, emphasizing the importance of channelling their efforts towards matters of greater societal consequence," the Court observed..The Court was hearing an appeal against a Chhattisgarh High Court order that had refused to quash a cheating case in which both parties alleged exchange of money in lieu of promised jobs.The case involved a series of parallel proceedings and counter-allegations.The top court noted at the outset that law enforcement agencies like the police shoulder the vital responsibility of preserving public order, guarding social harmony and upholding the foundations of justice. However, complex matters occasionally make their way into the hands of the police, it noted. "Beyond the immediate contours of the case, a broader question emerges regarding the balancing of interests that ought to be done between addressing unscrupulous private grievances and safeguarding public interests.".It was made clear that any agreement to provide jobs in exchange for cash is clearly an unlawful contract, for which even a suit for recovery could not have been filed.It thus noted that the criminal complaint a medium to recover the amounts in question by building on the pressure and threat of criminal prosecution."Prima facie, the conduct exhibited by the parties involved appears tainted with suspicion, casting a shadow over the veracity of their claims...The unexplained inordinate delay in bringing these allegations to the police’s attention despite knowledge of previous inquiry, raises even more doubts and adds a layer of scepticism to the authenticity of the claims."The facts of the case indicate a shared culpability, mala fide intentions and deceit between the parties, the top court held..In conclusion, the Court called for the police to to exercise heightened caution when drawn into contentious disputes of such unethical nature among private parties."The need for vigilance on the part of the police is paramount, and a discerning eye should be cast upon cases where unscrupulous conduct appears to eclipse the pursuit of justice. This case exemplifies the need for a circumspect approach in discerning the genuine from the spurious and thus ensuring that the resources of the state are utilised for matters of true societal import.".The appeal was, thus, allowed. The criminal case and the High Court ruling were quashed..Advocates Sameer Shrivastava, Sangeeta Verma, Shivendra Dixit and Yashika Varshney represented the accused.Advocates Gautam Narayan, Asmita Singh, Harshit Goel, Sujay Jain, Sachin Patil, Kailas Bajirao Autade, Sunil Kumar Sethi, Siddhant Singh, Kailas U More and Nirmala D Borade appeared for the State of Chhattisgarh..Supreme Court imposes ₹25 lakh costs on litigant for initiating criminal proceedings in civil dispute.[Read judgment]