Can criminal proceedings be used to recover a disputed sum of money where the dispute is essentially a civil money transaction?

No. The Supreme Court held that where a money transaction is found on investigation and the demand is only for its return, the remedy is a civil suit for recovery, not criminal prosecution used as an arm-twisting method to coerce repayment, particularly once limitation for such a civil suit has expired.

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s.482 — Criminal prosecution as recovery tool — Civil dispute — Natural justice — Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s.482 — Money dispute is not a criminal wrong — Held: Where a money transaction is found on investigation and the demand is only for its return, the remedy is a civil suit, not criminal prosecution used to arm-twist repayment once limitation for a civil recovery suit has expired. (¶7) Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — s.482 — Notice before a prejudicial remand — Held further: A person prejudiced by a remand setting aside refusal of cognizance ought to be heard first. Impugned order set aside, appeal allowed, restoring dismissal of the complaint. (¶6, 8)

One judgment a day. That's the whole habit.

Read the full text of Sandeep Shukla v. State of U.P. & Anr — and get the Supreme Court's output as a five-minute daily read, with plain-language headnotes and the questions each judgment settles.

Free forever plan · 30 seconds · data stays in India