Non-payment of money or breach of contract are civil wrongs that differ from criminal offences, a bench of Justices Sanjiv Khanna and Dipankar Datta reiterated.

A bench of Justices Sanjiv Khanna and Dipankar Datta explained that there is a clear distinction between a breach of contract and criminal offences.

Non-payment of money or breach of contract are civil wrongs that differ from criminal offences, the Court underscored.

The police is to investigate the allegations which discloses a criminal act. Police does not have the power and authority to recover money or act as a civil court for recovery of money, the Court observed.

The observations came while quashing a criminal complaint and subsequent proceedings against an accused. Police do not have the authority to recover money or act as a civil court for recovery of money after civil proceedings fail, the Supreme Court recently said in the case Lalit Chaturvedi and others vs State of Uttar Pradesh and another. The charge sheet had alleged criminal breach of trust and criminal intimidation, apart from cheating, after a contract between the accused and the complainant fell through.

The High Court refused to set aside the criminal case leading to the instant appeal before the Apex court.

The Apex court at the outset lamented that its judgments regarding differentiating criminal and civil offences were getting overlooked instead of being applied and enforced. The lack of authentic efforts and biased and personal interests leads to such acts.

“It is one thing to say that a case has been made out for trial and criminal proceedings should not be quashed, but another thing to say that a person must undergo a criminal trial despite the fact that no offence has been made out in the complaint,” it stated. The charge sheet clearly shows that no criminal case is made out against the instant accused, it added.

“No details and particulars are mentioned. In this case entrustment is missing, in fact it is not even alleged. It is a case of sale of goods.” The top court noted that the criminal case had been lodged only with an intent to activate police machinery for recovery of money. Initiation of the criminal process for such oblique purposes is bad in law, it underscored. It, thus, set aside the High Court order and quashed all criminal proceedings in the matter.

.

.

.