Introduction:

On October 15, 2024, the Gujarat High Court raised serious concerns regarding the undue involvement of police in commercial disputes. Justice Sandeep N Bhatt criticized police authorities for straying from their core duties of maintaining law and order by intervening in private financial matters, suggesting the possibility of “extraneous considerations.” This observation came in response to a petition filed by a businessman who alleged police harassment related to a complaint over unpaid bills. The court directed senior police officials to provide explanations and reminded them to focus on critical public issues such as traffic management, drug-related activities, and violent crimes.

Brief Facts:

The petitioner, a businessman involved in agricultural trade, approached the High Court after allegedly facing harassment from police regarding a commercial complaint. A complaint of unpaid bills was lodged against him, which he claimed was false and intended for extortion. Despite responding to the complaint, the petitioner stated that the police continued to summon him, causing undue stress and harassment. He sought the court’s intervention to halt police interference in what he argued was a private financial matter.

The State’s report, submitted by the Deputy Superintendent of Police, indicated that the complaints had been disposed of, but the court remained concerned about the police’s role.

Arguments from the Petitioner:

The petitioner’s counsel argued that the police had overreached by becoming involved in a financial dispute between private parties. He asserted that the complaint was filed with the intent to extort money and that the police’s involvement indicated ulterior motives. The petitioner requested an investigation into the conduct of the officers and a directive from the court to prevent further interference by the police in similar matters. He emphasized that police intervention in private disputes is becoming increasingly common in Gujarat, creating fear and wasting resources that should be used for public safety and law enforcement.

Arguments from the Respondents (State and Police Authorities):

The police, represented by the Deputy Superintendent, defended their actions, arguing that they had followed due legal process in responding to a formal complaint. They denied the allegations of harassment and insisted that their actions were lawful and within their responsibilities. The police authorities requested the court to dismiss the petition, contending that the petitioner’s claims were baseless and that there was no misconduct or “extraneous consideration” in their involvement.

Court’s Judgement:

Justice Sandeep N Bhatt expressed significant concern over the police’s involvement in commercial matters, highlighting that their primary duty lies in maintaining public order, not intervening in private financial disputes. The court remarked that such involvement raises questions about potential misconduct and improper motives. Justice Bhatt emphasized that police resources should be focused on pressing public safety issues, such as drug-related activities, traffic management, and violent crimes, instead of being diverted to private disputes.

The court directed the Deputy Superintendent and the Officer-in-Charge to submit affidavits explaining their actions and the reasoning behind summoning the petitioner. Additionally, the court ordered senior police officials, including the Director General of Police (DGP) and Inspector General of Police (IGP), to take corrective measures to prevent similar police involvement in commercial disputes. The court set the next hearing for October 25, 2024, to review the affidavits and address systemic concerns regarding police practices in such matters.