SHAILESH KUMAR SINGH ALIAS SHAILESH R. SINGHversusSTATE OF UTTAR PRADESH & ORS.

          [2025] 7 S.C.R. 2161 : 2025 INSC 869

   Shailesh Kumar Singh Alias Shailesh R. Singh
                          v.
           State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors.
             (Criminal Appeal No. 2963 of 2025)
                          14 July 2025
       [J.B. Pardiwala and R. Mahadevan, JJ.]


                    Issue for Consideration
Whether the High Court erred in passing the impugned order, in the
writ petition filed by the appellant for quashing of the FIR lodged
by the Respondent No.4-complainant for offences punishable
u/ss.60(b), 316(2) and 318 (2), BNS, 2023, and directing the parties
to go for mediation and also directing the appellant to hand-over
a demand draft of Rs.25 Lakh to the Respondent No.4 for the
mediation; whether the impugned FIR against the appellant ought to
be quashed as the dispute between the parties is of a civil nature.

                           Headnotes†
Quashing – Of FIR – Dispute civil in nature – Constitution of
India – Art.226 – Writ petition filed by the appellant for quashing
of the FIR lodged by the Respondent No.4-complainant for
the offence punishable u/ss.60(b), 316(2) and 318(2), BNS,
2023 – High Court directed the parties to go for mediation
and also directed the appellant to hand-over a demand draft
of Rs.25 Lakh to the Respondent No.4 for the mediation –
Interference with:
Held: High Court may either allow the petition saying that no
offence is disclosed or may reject the petition saying that no case
for quashing is made out – It ought not to make an attempt to help
the complainant to recover the amount due and payable by the
accused – Approach of High Court, deprecated – In a writ petition
filed u/Art.226 of the Constitution or a miscellaneous application
filed u/s.482, Cr.PC for quashing of FIR or any other criminal
proceedings, High Court ought to look into the averments and
the allegations levelled in the FIR along with the other material
on record, if any – There was an oral agreement between the
parties – Respondent No.4 might have parted with some money
in accordance with the oral agreement and it may be that the
2162                                                        [2025] 7 S.C.R.

                        Supreme Court Reports


    appellant owes a particular amount to be paid to the Respondent
    No.4 – However, to constitute an offence of cheating, there has to
    be something more than prima facie on record to indicate that the
    intention of the accused was to cheat the complainant right from
    the inception – Dispute between the parties is of a civil nature –
    FIR does not disclose any element of criminality – Impugned
    FIR quashed – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – s.482.
    [Paras 9-12, 15, 17]

    Abuse of process of law – Dispute between parties civil in
    nature, recourse to criminal proceedings – Impermissibility:
    Held: In the present case no civil suit was filed for recovery of
    money – Money cannot be recovered, more particularly, in a civil
    dispute between the parties by filing a FIR and seeking the help
    of the Police – This amounts to abuse of process of law – If the
    Respondent No.4 has to recover a particular amount, he may
    file a civil suit or seek any other appropriate remedy available to
    him in law – He cannot take recourse of criminal proceedings.
    [Paras 13, 14]

                             Case Law Cited
    Delhi Race Club (1940) Limited v. State of Uttar Pradesh [2024] 8
    SCR 670 : (2024) 10 SCC 690 – relied on.
    State of Haryana & Others v. Bhajan Lal & Others [1992] Supp. 3
    SCR 735 : (1992) Supp. 1 SCC 335 – referred to.

                               List of Acts
    Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023; Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973;
    Constitution of India; IB Code, 2016.

                            List of Keywords
    Quashing of FIR; Dispute civil in nature; Civil dispute; Criminal
    breach of trust; Cheating; Intention of accused not to cheat the
    complainant from inception; Oral agreement; No element of
    criminality in FIR; Abuse of process of law; Recovery of money;
    Civil suit; Recourse to criminal proceedings not permitted; High
    Court directed parties for mediation; Judicial deprecation; Impugned
    FIR; Impugned FIR quashed; Writ petition filed for quashing of FIR.
[2025] 7 S.C.R.                                                       2163

            Shailesh Kumar Singh Alias Shailesh R. Singh v.
                     State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors.

                           Case Arising From
     CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal No.
     2963 of 2025
     From the Judgment and Order dated 07.03.2025 of the High Court
     of Judicature at Allahabad in CRMWP No. 4413 of 2025

                        Appearances for Parties
     Advs. for the Appellant:
     Ms. Sana Raees Khan, Ms. Smiti Verma, Pranay Shridhar Chitale,
     Ms. Beleena Biju.
     Advs. for the Respondents:
     Sarvesh Singh Baghel, Ms. Nupur Dubey, Shaurya Krishna, Anand
     Mishra, Sachin Midha.

                Judgment / Order of the Supreme Court

                                 Order

1.   Leave granted.
2.   This appeal arises from the order passed by the High Court of
     Judicature at Allahabad dated 7-3-2025 by which the High Court in
     a Writ Petition filed by the appellant – herein praying for quashing
     of the First Information Report lodged by the Respondent No.4 –
     herein for the offence punishable under Sections 60(b), 316(2) and
     318 (2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (for short, “the BNS,
     2023”) directed the parties to go for mediation and simultaneously
     also directed the appellant – herein to hand-over a demand draft of
     Rs.25,00,0000/- (Rupees Twenty Five Lakh only) for the purpose of
     mediation to the Respondent No.4 (original complainant).
3.   The impugned order passed by the High Court reads thus”-
           “1. Heard Ms. Sana Raees Khan, learned counsel for
           the petitioner and learned A.G.A. appearing for the State
           respondents.
           2. The petitioner, by means of this writ petition under
           Article 226 of the Constitution of India, has invoked the
           inherent jurisdiction of this Court with prayer to quash
           the impugned First Information Report dated 09.01.2025
2164                                                     [2025] 7 S.C.R.

                      Supreme Court Reports


        registered as Case Crime No.12 of 2025 under Sections
        60(b), 316(2) and 318(2) of B.N.S., 2023, P.S. Hariparwat,
        District Agra. Further request is made to issue direction to
        the respondents not to arrest the petitioner.
        3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the
        petitioner is a co-founder and production head of M/s.
        Karma Media and Entertainment LLP, which is primarily
        engaged in production of motion picture. The respondent
        no.4 (informant) is running the business under the name
        and style of M/s Polaroid Media, which is engaged in the
        business of financing, co-production and co- financing
        media projects. The informant has lodged the impugned
        FIR by dragging a civil dispute inter-se the parties into
        criminal case. A bare perusal of the impugned FIR, no
        criminal offence is made out against the petitioner. It
        is submitted that the Court must ensure that criminal
        prosecution is not used as an instrument of harassment
        or for seeking private vendetta or with an ulterior motive to
        pressurise the accused. Even though the proceedings are
        pending and neither the charge-sheet nor the final report
        has been submitted in the present case. In support of her
        submission she has placed reliance on the judgements
        of Apex Court in Delhi Race Club (1940) Ltd. vs. State
        of Uttar Pradesh (2024) 0 Supreme 689 (paras 25, 28,
        29 and 30) and In the case of Radheyshyam & ors vs.
        State of Rajasthan & another Criminal Appeal No.3020 of
        2024 decided on July 22, 2024. She lastly submits that
        as there is a commercial dispute and both the parties are
        reputed in the society, instead of dragging the matter in
        the criminal proceeding. it would be apt that the matter
        may be referred to the Mediation and Conciliation Centre
        of this Court.
        4. In response to the aforesaid request, we have asked
        learned counsel for the petitioner to seek instructions from
        the petitioner for upfront payment to the informant so that
        the matter may be referred to the Mediation and Conciliation
        Centre and we have adjourned the proceeding. Later
        on, on the instructions, learned counsel for the petitioner
[2025] 7 S.C.R.                                                             2165

            Shailesh Kumar Singh Alias Shailesh R. Singh v.
                     State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors.

           submits that the petitioner is inclined to pay Rs.25 lakhs
           within three weeks from today.
           5. Accordingly, the matter is referred to the Mediation
           Centre of this Court with the direction that after deposit of
           such amount by the petitioner, the Mediation Centre shall
           make all possible efforts to conclude the mediation and
           conciliation proceedings expeditiously, preferably within a
           period of three months.
           6. Let the parties be present at the Mediation and
           Conciliation Centre of this Court on 08.04.2025. The
           demand draft of Rs.25 lakhs would be handed over to the
           informant on the said date and a separate draft of Rs.5000/
           towards the mediation fee shall also be deposited with the
           Mediation and Conciliation Centre.
           7. List after expiry of aforesaid period before the appropriate
           Bench along with the report of Mediation Centre.
           8. Till the next date of listing, respondents are restrained
           to arrest the petitioner pursuant to the impugned F.I.R.
           subject to cooperation in the on-going investigation.
           9. It is made clear that in case there occurs default by the
           petitioner either in depositing the amount or in appearing
           before the Mediation Centre on the date fixed, the interim
           order shall cease to operate and the Mediation Centre shall
           immediately communicate with the office which in tum shall
           list the case within a week before the appropriate Bench
           for passing orders in the matter.”
4.   We heard Ms. Sana Raees Khan, the learned counsel appearing
     for the appellant (accused), Mr. Anand Mishra, the learned counsel
     appearing for the Respondent No.4 and and Mr. Shaurya Krishna,
     the learned counsel appearing for the State of U.P.
5.   Section 60(b) of the BNS, 2023 reads thus:-
     60. Concealing design to commit offence punishable with
     imprisonment.—
           “Whoever, intending to facilitate or knowing it to be likely
           that he will thereby facilitate the commission of an offence
2166                                                      [2025] 7 S.C.R.

                        Supreme Court Reports


          punishable with imprisonment, voluntarily conceals, by
          any act or illegal omission, the existence of a design to
          commit such offence, or makes any representation which
          he knows to be false respecting such design shall,—
          (a) if the offence be committed, be punished with
          imprisonment of the description provided for the offence,
          for a term which may extend to one-fourth; and
          (b) if the offence be not committed, to one-eighth, of the
          longest term of such imprisonment, or with such fine as
          is provided for the offence, or with both.
6.   Section 316(2) of the BNS, 2023 reads thus:-
     316. Criminal breach of trust. (2) Whoever commits criminal breach
     of trust shall be punished with imprisonment of either description
     for a term which may extend to five years, or with fine, or with both.
7.   Section 318(2) of the BNS,2023 reads thus:-
     318. Cheating. (2) Whoever cheats shall be punished with
     imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to
     three years, or with fine, or with both.
8.   We called upon the learned counsel appearing for the Respondent
     No.4 to make us understand in what manner the FIR discloses
     commission of a cognizable offence. We also called upon the learned
     counsel appearing for the Respondent No.4 to make us understand
     in what manner his client could be said to have been cheated so as
     to constitute the offence of cheating.
9.   What we have been able to understand is that there is an oral
     agreement between the parties. The Respondent No.4 might have
     parted with some money in accordance with the oral agreement and
     it may be that the appellant – herein owes a particular amount to
     be paid to the Respondent No.4. However, the question is whether
     prima facie any offence of cheating could be said to have been
     committed by the appellant.
10. How many times the High Courts are to be reminded that to constitute
    an offence of cheating, there has to be something more than prima
    facie on record to indicate that the intention of the accused was to
    cheat the complainant right from the inception. The plain reading of
    the FIR does not disclose any element of criminality.
[2025] 7 S.C.R.                                                      2167

            Shailesh Kumar Singh Alias Shailesh R. Singh v.
                     State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors.

11. The entire case is squarely covered by a recent pronouncement of
    this Court in the case of “Delhi Race Club (1940) Limited vs. State of
    Uttar Pradesh” reported in (2024) 10 SCC 690. In the said decision,
    the entire law as to what constitutes cheating and criminal breach of
    trust respectively has been exhaustively explained. It appears that
    this very decision was relied upon by the learned counsel appearing
    for the petitioner before the High Court. However, instead of looking
    into the matter on its own merits, the High Court thought fit to direct
    the petitioner to go for mediation and that too by making payment
    of Rs. 25,00,000/- to the 4th respondent as a condition precedent.
    We fail to understand, why the High Court should undertake such
    exercise. The High Court may either allow the petition saying that no
    offence is disclosed or may reject the petition saying that no case for
    quashing is made out. Why should the High Court make an attempt
    to help the complainant to recover the amount due and payable by
    the accused. It is for the Civil Court or Commercial Court as the
    case may be to look into in a suit that may be filed for recovery of
    money or in any other proceedings, be it under the Arbitration Act,
    1996 or under the provisions of the IB Code, 2016.
12. Why the High Court was not able to understand that the entire dispute
    between the parties is of a civil nature.
13. We also enquired with the learned counsel appearing for the
    Respondent No.4 whether his client has filed any civil suit or has
    initiated any other proceedings for recovery of the money. It appears
    that no civil suit has been filed for recovery of money till this date.
    Money cannot be recovered, more particularly, in a civil dispute
    between the parties by filing a First Information Report and seeking
    the help of the Police. This amounts to abuse of process of law.
14. We could have said many things but we refrain from observing
    anything further. If the Respondent No.4 has to recover a particular
    amount, he may file a civil suit or seek any other appropriate remedy
    available to him in law. He cannot be permitted to take recourse of
    criminal proceedings.
15. We are quite disturbed by the manner in which the High Court has
    passed the impugned order. The High Court first directed the appellant
    to pay Rs.25,00,000/- to the Respondent No.4 and thereafter directed
    him to appear before the Mediation and Conciliation Centre for the
    purpose of settlement. That’s not what is expected of a High Court
2168                                                       [2025] 7 S.C.R.

                            Supreme Court Reports


     to do in a Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution or
     a miscellaneous application filed under Section 482 of the Code of
     Criminal Procedure, 1973 for quashing of FIR or any other criminal
     proceedings. What is expected of the High Court is to look into the
     averments and the allegations levelled in the FIR along with the other
     material on record, if any. The High Court seems to have forgotten
     the well-settled principles as enunciated in the decision of this Court
     in the “State of Haryana & Others vs. Bhajan Lal & Others” Reported
     in 1992 Supp.(1) SCC 335.
16. In the result, this appeal succeeds and is hereby allowed.
17. The impugned FIR stands quashed.
18. We once again clarify that it shall be open for the Respondent No.4
    to avail appropriate legal remedy before the appropriate forum in
    accordance with law for the recovery of the alleged amount due and
    payable to him.

     Result of the case: Appeal allowed.



     †
         Headnotes prepared by: Divya Pandey