On misuse of criminal proceedings to settle civil disputes: A critical SC verdict from last year that missed our attention
When procedural abuse becomes an institutional habit, who ultimately pays the price? The SC’s 2024 decision in Tushar Rajnikantbhai Shah gave some important answers.
Kuldip Sharma
11 August 2025
ONE OF THE LANDMARK JUDGEMENTSdelivered by the Supreme Court in recent times has escaped the attention it deserves from the police forces across the country. The top Court's decision in Tushar Rajnikantbhai Shah v. Kamal Dayani & Others (2024) is not merely an adjudication—it is a reaffirmation. It reasserts the sanctity of judicial orders and calls forth a renewal of procedural discipline within our institutions. In acknowledging both the culpability and constraints of those involved, the Court reminds us that accountability and empathy are not adversaries, but cohabitants of justice.
A tale of contempt and allegations of custodial torture
The petitioner, Tusharbhai Shah, was named in an FIR arising from a property dispute. He was alleged to have received ₹1.65 crores in cash for the sale of fifteen shops but failed to deliver possession. After lower courts denied his plea for anticipatory bail, Shah approached the Supreme Court. On December 8, 2023, the top Court granted him interim anticipatory bail, thereby protecting him from arrest.
Despite presenting the Supreme Court's bail order, Shah was remanded to four days of police custody on December 13 by the 6th Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate (‘ACJM’), Surat. This remand was based on a police application citing non-cooperation. Upon being produced before the court again, Shah alleged custodial torture by the Deputy Commissioner of Police and the Police Inspector. The ACJM ignored these claims.
Immediately following his release, Shah filed an application before the Commissioner of Police, requesting preservation of CCTV footage at the police station—as mandated by the Supreme Court in Paramvir Singh Saini v. Baljit Singh (2020). This request was also disregarded.
Shah subsequently filed a contempt petition against the Commissioner of Police (Respondent No.2), the Deputy Commissioner of Police ((Respondent No.3), the Police Inspector (Respondent No.4), and the ACJM (Respondent No.7), alleging deliberate disobedience of the Supreme Court’s order. He further claimed custodial torture and delayed release in defiance of the Court’s protection.
In acknowledging both the culpability and constraints of those involved, the Court reminds us that accountability and empathy are not adversaries, but cohabitants of justice.
Magistrates actions biased and high-handed: Supreme Court
In her affidavit before the Court, the ACJM attempted to justify her remand order by citing prevailing practice in Gujarat, rooted in the 2014 Gujarat High Court judgment in Sunilbhai Kothari (2014). The Supreme Court categorically rejected her submission, declaring it neither convincing nor tenable. It emphasized that this was not a case involving vague or interpretative anticipatory bail under Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (‘CrPC’). Rather, the Supreme Court’s order of December 8, 2023, issued under Article 136 of the Constitution, was clear and unambiguous.
While the Court found the magistrate’s actions biased and high-handed, it held the Police Inspector’s conduct to be in flagrant defiance and gross contempt of its order. Reaffirming its consistent prioritisation of individual liberty, the top Court noted that the magistrate had improperly dismissed Shah’s complaint of custodial violence without following procedure under Sections 200 and 202 of the CrPC—a dismissal later overturned by the High Court.