The Contradictory Scenario of Police Involvement in Money Recovery

Scenario of Police Involvement in Money Recovery

Police is a Law Enforcement Agency and deals with offences towards the State. Criminology defines ‘Mens Rea’ or responsible thoughts as an offence in the direction of the stage the place an individual just isn’t punished, as a substitute the Criminal Intention that made him commit that offence is punished. 

Hence, intention stands as the fundamental ingredient of Criminal Offence.

ISSUE 1 related to Police Involvement in Money Recovery:

SOMEONE HAS TAKEN MONEY FROM YOU AND YOU NEED TO RECOVER THAT (can Police Involvement in Money Recovery possible).

This phrase that ‘somebody has taken cash from you’ provides out sure eventualities:

  1. Where you may have given somebody cash and they aren’t returning it and a Contract has been drawn.
  2. Where you may have saved your cash with somebody and they aren’t returning.
  3. Where you may have given somebody items as a sale and so they haven’t paid you.

There is a transparent distinction between a Civil Wrong within the type of breach of contract, non-payment of cash or disregard to and violation of the contractual phrases and a prison offence below sections Cheating or Criminal Breach of Trust.

ISSUE 2 related to Police Involvement in Money Recovery:


In “Mohammed Ibrahim and Others v. State of Bihar and Another”,

 Court had referred to Section 420 of the IPC, to look at that with a purpose to represent an offence below the mentioned part, the next components are to be glad : –

Let us now study whether or not the components of an offence of dishonest are made out. The important components of the offence of “dishonest” are as follows:

(i) deception of an individual both by making a false or deceptive illustration or by dishonest concealment or by some other act or omission;

(ii) fraudulent or dishonest inducement of that particular person to both ship any property or to consent to the retention thereof by any particular person or to deliberately induce that particular person so deceived to do or omit to do something which he wouldn’t do or omit if he weren’t so deceived; and

(iii) such act or omission inflicting or is more likely to trigger harm or hurt to that particular person in physique, thoughts, status or property.

To represent an offence below part 420, there mustn’t solely be dishonest, however as a consequence of such dishonest, the accused ought to have dishonestly induced the particular person deceived

(i) to ship any property to any particular person, or 

(ii) to make, alter or destroy wholly or partially a useful safety (or something signed or sealed and which is able to being transformed right into a useful safety).”

Similar elucidation by Supreme Court in “V.Y. Jose and Another v. State of Gujarat and Another”, explicitly states that:

               “a contractual dispute or breach of contract per se mustn’t result in initiation of a prison continuing“

The ingredient of ‘dishonest’, as outlined below Section 415 of the IPC, is existence of a fraudulent or dishonest intention of constructing preliminary promise or illustration thereof, from the very starting of the formation of contract.

For the offence of dishonest, dishonest intention should exist on the inception of the transaction, whereas, in case of prison breach of belief there should exist a relationship between the events whereby one occasion entrusts one other with the property as per regulation, albeit dishonest intention comes later.

ISSUE 3 related to Police Involvement in Money Recovery:


This query can’t be answered in a single sentence since police is a regulation imposing equipment and Courts guarantee due technique of regulation. In quick Police has to implement regulation associated to their duties and Courts are to listen to the instances filed by the police within the Courts and impart justice based mostly on the proof positioned earlier than it.

If any such case which lacks the fundamental ingredient of prison jurisprudence for need of mens rea is filed, it has to undergo court docket and following on such lack, it may be quashed by the High Court or Supreme Court. However, it’s to be famous that this course of just isn’t Suo Moto by the court docket, thus it is going to be the beginning of the harassments to the borrower.

Averments by the borrower of cash can invite s.506 of IPC charging them of Criminal Intimidation can activate police equipment for the restoration of cash as is seen from the case of Lalit Chaturvedi (You can learn by clicking the hyperlink under).

ISSUE 4 related to Police Involvement in Money Recovery:


Yes, if any false case has been instituted towards you then you may get your instances quashed (completed) from the High Court below part 482 Cr.P.C. Which states inherent powers of High Court.


As it may be seen from a number of judgements that the instances which pertains to restoration of cash might take prison angle if Criminal intimidation involving threats have been seen or any factor as close to as refusal to pay again is obvious from the prior investigation. It is equally harassing for the borrower as it’s harassing for the lender to institute an FIR.

It was noticed by court docket within the case that an individual mustn’t endure harassment of litigation for variety of years when no prison offence is made out. 

Need Help?

Get assistance from quaified lawyer

Call us

Other Related Stories

Filing a Cheque Bounce Complaint – Process, Fees and Documents Required in 2024

Rate this post