HC Cannot Set Aside Cognizance Refusal Without Hearing Accused: Supreme Court
The Supreme Court has ruled that a High Court cannot set aside an order refusing to take cognizance of a criminal complaint and remand the matter for fresh consideration without first giving the affected accused an opportunity of being heard. The Court held that although an accused ordinarily has no right of hearing at the pre-cognizance stage, that position changes when a previous refusal to take cognizance is being overturned.
A Bench of Justices J.B. Pardiwala and K. Vinod Chandran delivered the ruling while allowing an appeal filed by Sandeep Shukla. The Supreme Court found that the Allahabad High Court had erred by dispensing with notice to Shukla on the assumption that he had no right to participate before cognizance was taken.
The Court explained that setting aside an order refusing cognizance and sending the complaint back for reconsideration is not a neutral procedural step. Such an order effectively reopens criminal proceedings against the person named in the complaint and therefore necessarily carries the potential to prejudice that person.
The Supreme Court consequently held that the High Court should have issued notice and heard the accused before disturbing the order that had refused cognizance. The failure to do so rendered the High Court’s order unsustainable.
The case originated from a dispute involving an alleged payment of ₹10 lakh in connection with the proposed sale of a flat. The complainant alleged that the money had been paid in two instalments but that neither the flat was transferred nor the amount returned. Allegations of an assault during an alleged attempt to obtain repayment were also raised.
The Supreme Court, however, found that the substance of the dispute concerned recovery of money arising from a transaction. It reiterated that criminal proceedings cannot be employed as a mechanism for recovering money or as a means of putting pressure on an accused to satisfy a monetary demand.
The Bench stressed that where the underlying dispute is essentially civil in nature, the criminal process cannot be converted into an instrument of coercion. The appropriate remedy for recovery of money is a civil proceeding rather than criminal prosecution.
The Court also took note of the substantial delay between the alleged payment and the complaint to the Superintendent of Police. According to the judgment, the second instalment was allegedly paid on January 27, 2020, while the complaint to the police authority was made only on March 13, 2023.
In the final outcome, the Supreme Court set aside the Allahabad High Court’s order and restored the earlier orders refusing cognizance and dismissing the complaint. The ruling therefore provides an important procedural safeguard for accused persons when a High Court seeks to revive criminal proceedings that had already been rejected at the cognizance stage.
The judgment, dated August 5, 2026, is reported as Sandeep Shukla v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr., Criminal Appeal No. 2026 arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 4695 of 2026, and is reported as 2026 INSC 817
