Misuse of Law and Police in India: Legal Remedies, Constitutional Safeguards and Supreme Court Guidelines

Introduction

Law is intended to protect citizens, maintain public order and ensure justice. Police powers are an essential part of the criminal justice system because investigation, prevention of crime and protection of victims cannot be effectively carried out without them.

However, the same legal powers can become oppressive when they are exercised for an improper purpose, without following statutory safeguards, or merely to harass, intimidate or pressurise a person.

The expression “misuse of law and police” is therefore not merely a social complaint. In appropriate cases, it raises serious questions concerning Article 14, Article 21 and Article 22 of the Constitution of India, statutory compliance, fairness of investigation and the abuse of criminal process.

The Supreme Court of India has repeatedly emphasised that the power to investigate a crime is important, but the power of arrest is not to be exercised mechanically. More recently, in Satender Kumar Antil v. Central Bureau of Investigation, decided on 15 January 2026, the Supreme Court examined the position under the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS) and reaffirmed that arrest is not mandatory merely because an allegation of a cognizable offence exists.

The central principle is simple:

The existence of legal power does not mean that the power can be exercised arbitrarily.

What Does “Misuse of Law” Mean?

There is no single statutory definition of “misuse of law”. In practical legal terms, the expression may cover situations where a legal provision, criminal complaint, FIR, arrest, investigation or court proceeding is used for a purpose other than the legitimate enforcement of law.

Examples may include:

• filing a false or fabricated criminal complaint to settle a personal dispute;
• converting a purely civil or commercial dispute into a criminal case without the necessary ingredients of a criminal offence;
• implicating persons against whom there are no specific allegations;
• using arrest merely as a means of humiliation or pressure;
• arresting a person mechanically without examining whether arrest is actually necessary;
• deliberately delaying or avoiding a fair investigation;
• threatening a person with arrest to force a settlement;
• repeatedly initiating criminal proceedings on substantially the same facts for harassment;
• using criminal proceedings to pressurise a party in property, matrimonial, commercial or contractual disputes; or
• continuing proceedings where the allegations, even if accepted on their face, do not disclose the commission of an offence.

At the same time, every unsuccessful criminal case is not necessarily a case of misuse of law. A person being acquitted does not automatically establish that the FIR was malicious or that the police acted illegally.

This distinction is important.

The allegation of “misuse” must ordinarily be supported by the facts, documents, circumstances and the legal ingredients of the alleged offence.

Misuse of Police Power and the Constitutional Right to Life and Liberty

Article 21 of the Constitution provides that no person shall be deprived of life or personal liberty except according to procedure established by law.

The protection is not limited to the final stage of a criminal trial.

An unnecessary arrest, illegal detention, custodial violence, coercive investigation, or arbitrary exercise of police power can directly affect the liberty protected by Article 21.

The Supreme Court has consistently treated personal liberty as a constitutional value which cannot be sacrificed merely because an FIR has been registered.

In Joginder Kumar v. State of U.P., the Supreme Court emphasised that the existence of the power to arrest is different from the justification for exercising that power. The arrest of a person should not become routine merely because the police possess the legal authority to arrest.

This principle has become even more significant under the BNSS.

Arrest Is Not the Same as Investigation

One of the most common misunderstandings is that once an FIR is registered, the accused must necessarily be arrested.

That is legally incorrect.

Section 35 of the BNSS, 2023 deals with the circumstances in which police may arrest without warrant. In cases involving cognizable offences punishable with imprisonment of up to seven years, the provision requires not merely a reasonable complaint, credible information or reasonable suspicion, but also satisfaction of the statutory conditions making arrest necessary.

The Supreme Court has now expressly reaffirmed this position under the BNSS.

In Satender Kumar Antil v. CBI, 2026 INSC 115, the Court held, inter alia, that:

• arrest is a statutory discretion and is not mandatory;
• the police officer must consider whether arrest is actually necessary;
• for offences punishable with imprisonment up to seven years, the requirements of Section 35(1)(b) BNSS must be satisfied;
• a notice under Section 35(3) is the rule in cases where arrest is not required; and
• even where circumstances permitting arrest exist, arrest should not be undertaken unless it is absolutely warranted.

This is a significant protection against mechanical arrest.

Section 35 BNSS: An Important Safeguard Against Unnecessary Arrest

Section 35(1)(b) BNSS requires the police officer, in the relevant category of offences, to have reason to believe that the person has committed the offence and to be satisfied that arrest is necessary for one or more specified purposes.

These include:

1. preventing the person from committing another offence;
2. proper investigation;
3. preventing disappearance or tampering with evidence;
4. preventing inducement, threat or promise to witnesses; or
5. ensuring the person’s presence before the Court when required.

The officer is also required to record reasons in writing when making the arrest. Where arrest is not made, the reasons for not making the arrest are also required to be recorded in the circumstances contemplated by the statute.

Section 35(3) further provides for a notice requiring the person to appear before the police officer where arrest is not required.

The Supreme Court’s 2026 decision in Satender Kumar Antil is particularly important because it places the statutory scheme of the BNSS in the broader constitutional context of personal liberty.

Read More–

Advocacy and AI: How Artificial Intelligence Is Changing the Legal Profession in India

Arnesh Kumar Principle Continues to Be Important

The landmark judgment of Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar, (2014) 8 SCC 273 remains one of the most important authorities on unnecessary arrest.

The Supreme Court made it clear that a police officer cannot arrest a person merely because the offence is punishable with imprisonment up to seven years.

The officer must first ask:

Why is arrest necessary?

The Court required the police officer to examine whether arrest is necessary for purposes such as preventing further offences, proper investigation, preventing tampering with evidence, preventing threats or inducements to witnesses, or ensuring the accused’s presence before the Court.

The Court also directed that reasons and material supporting the arrest must be properly recorded and placed before the Magistrate.

The 2026 Supreme Court judgment specifically recognises the continuing relevance of Arnesh Kumar while interpreting Section 35 BNSS.

FIR Registration Does Not Give Unlimited Power to Police

Another important issue is the distinction between registration of an FIR and validity of the criminal proceedings.

The Supreme Court in Lalita Kumari v. Government of Uttar Pradesh recognised the general statutory obligation to register an FIR when information discloses a cognizable offence, while also recognising limited situations where a preliminary inquiry may be appropriate.

The principle is therefore not that police can refuse to register every complaint because they consider it doubtful.

At the same time, registration of an FIR does not mean that every subsequent police action is automatically lawful.

The investigation must remain within the boundaries of law.

The Supreme Court has recognised that the criminal process itself can become an instrument of abuse and that constitutional courts possess jurisdiction to prevent such abuse.

When Can a Criminal Case Be Quashed as an Abuse of Process?

Section 528 of the BNSS preserves the inherent powers of the High Court to make orders necessary:

• to give effect to an order under the BNSS;
• to prevent abuse of the process of any Court; or
• otherwise to secure the ends of justice.

The corresponding provision under the old CrPC was Section 482.

The classic principles are found in State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335.

The Supreme Court has recognised categories of cases where criminal proceedings may be quashed, including situations where:

• the allegations, even if accepted in their entirety, do not constitute an offence;
• the allegations do not disclose a cognizable offence;
• the allegations and material collected do not disclose commission of an offence;
• the allegations are so absurd or inherently improbable that no prudent person would reach the conclusion that an offence has been committed; or
• the proceeding is manifestly attended with mala fide or has been instituted maliciously with an ulterior motive.

These principles continue to be repeatedly applied by the Supreme Court.

Civil Dispute Given a Criminal Colour

One of the most frequently encountered forms of alleged misuse of criminal law is the conversion of a civil dispute into a criminal prosecution.

For example, disputes concerning:

• ownership of property;
• possession;
• contractual obligations;
• payment of money;
• business transactions;
• partnership accounts; or
• commercial disagreements

may sometimes be presented as allegations of cheating, criminal breach of trust, forgery or criminal intimidation.

But a civil dispute does not automatically become a criminal offence merely because one party uses criminal terminology.

The Court must examine whether the essential ingredients of the alleged offence are actually disclosed.

At the same time, the fact that a transaction has a civil dimension does not automatically prevent criminal prosecution. The same facts may, in an appropriate case, give rise to both civil and criminal consequences.

Therefore, the correct legal test is not simply:

“Is this a civil dispute?”

The correct question is:

“Do the facts disclose the ingredients of a criminal offence as well?”

This distinction is critical when challenging an allegedly abusive FIR.

Police Investigation Must Be Fair

Police have a statutory duty to investigate cognizable offences. Courts ordinarily do not interfere with a genuine investigation at its initial stage.

In Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Maharashtra, the Supreme Court emphasised that the statutory right and duty of police to investigate cognizable offences should not ordinarily be obstructed by premature judicial intervention. At the same time, the Court recognised the High Court’s power to prevent abuse of process where the circumstances justify such intervention.

Thus, two principles operate simultaneously:

First: genuine criminal investigations must be allowed to proceed.

Second: the criminal justice system cannot be permitted to become an instrument of harassment.

The Court therefore seeks to maintain a balance between effective investigation and individual liberty.

What Can a Person Do If the Police Are Misusing the Law?

The appropriate remedy depends upon the nature and stage of the alleged misuse.

1. Preserve the Evidence

A person facing harassment should preserve:

• copies of complaints and FIR;
• police notices;
• call records and messages, where legally available;
• relevant contracts and documents;
• CCTV footage;
• medical records;
• correspondence;
• previous litigation records; and
• documents showing the actual nature of the dispute.

A vague allegation of harassment is generally less effective than a properly documented factual record.

2. Seek Legal Protection Against Arrest

Depending upon the facts, an accused may consider appropriate remedies including anticipatory bail or other protective orders available under law.

However, the exact remedy depends upon the offence, the statutory provisions invoked and the stage of investigation.

3. Approach Senior Police Authorities

Where there is a genuine grievance regarding police inaction, improper investigation or refusal to register information, the statutory remedies under the BNSS and applicable police laws may be invoked.

4. Approach the High Court

In appropriate cases, a petition under Section 528 BNSS may be considered for quashing or for preventing abuse of the criminal process.

However, the High Court does not conduct a mini-trial at the FIR stage.

The Court generally examines whether the allegations, taken at their face value, disclose the commission of an offence and whether intervention is justified under the established principles.

5. Seek Appropriate Remedies for Illegal Detention or Custodial Abuse

Where personal liberty has been unlawfully curtailed, or constitutional safeguards have been violated, constitutional remedies may become relevant.

The Supreme Court has repeatedly stressed that procedural safeguards concerning liberty must be taken seriously.

False Criminal Complaints: Is There a Remedy?

Yes, depending upon the facts.

Section 248 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (BNS) specifically deals with “False charge of offence made with intent to injure.”

Where a person, with intent to cause injury, institutes or causes to be instituted a criminal proceeding, or falsely charges another with an offence while knowing that there is no just or lawful ground, the provision may become relevant. The punishment prescribed may extend to five years, fine up to ₹2 lakh, or both; more serious consequences apply where the false charge concerns an offence punishable with death, life imprisonment or imprisonment of ten years or more.

However, Section 248 BNS should not be invoked merely because a criminal case ultimately fails.

The statutory ingredients, including the requisite knowledge and intention, must be established.

Can Police Officers Be Held Responsible for Misuse of Power?

Yes, where the facts establish unlawful conduct.

Depending upon the circumstances, consequences may arise through:

• departmental proceedings;
• judicial directions;
• contempt proceedings in appropriate cases;
• compensation for violation of constitutional rights;
• criminal proceedings where the ingredients of an offence are established; and
• disciplinary or statutory remedies under applicable law.

The Supreme Court has repeatedly insisted that public authorities must exercise coercive powers within the limits prescribed by law.

The principle is particularly important because the police exercise powers which directly affect personal liberty.

A Practical Example

Suppose A and B enter into a business transaction. A claims that B has failed to pay money and files a civil recovery proceeding.

Instead of pursuing the civil remedy, A alleges cheating and criminal breach of trust, but the complaint contains no facts showing dishonest intention at the relevant time and no material indicating entrustment where such entrustment is an essential ingredient.

If the criminal process is being used merely to pressurise B into paying a disputed amount, the defence may examine whether the ingredients of the alleged offences are actually disclosed and whether the proceedings fall within the recognised categories for preventing abuse of process.

On the other hand, if the evidence shows that B obtained money through a dishonest scheme from the beginning, the mere existence of a civil remedy would not necessarily prevent criminal prosecution. The facts and ingredients of the offence remain decisive

Important Supreme Court Judgments on Misuse of Criminal Law and Police Power

Case	Important Principle
Joginder Kumar v. State of U.P.	Arrest must not be treated as routine merely because police possess the power to arrest.
D.K. Basu v. State of West Bengal	Constitutional and procedural safeguards relating to arrest and custody must be respected.
Lalita Kumari v. Government of U.P.	FIR registration is generally mandatory where information discloses a cognizable offence, subject to recognised exceptions.
Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar, (2014) 8 SCC 273	Arrest in offences punishable up to seven years cannot be mechanical; necessity must be established.
State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal, 1992 Supp (1) SCC 335	Recognised categories where criminal proceedings may be quashed to prevent abuse of process.
Priyanka Srivastava v. State of U.P.	Judicial process for directing investigation under the CrPC requires responsible and legally accountable invocation.
Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Maharashtra	Genuine investigation should ordinarily not be stifled at the initial stage, while abuse of process remains subject to judicial control.
Satender Kumar Antil v. CBI	Arrest is not mandatory; statutory safeguards and procedural compliance must be followed.
Satender Kumar Antil v. CBI, 2026 INSC 115	Under Section 35 BNSS, notice is the rule where arrest is not required, and arrest remains a discretionary measure requiring statutory justification.

The 2026 judgment is particularly significant for present-day practice because it directly interprets Section 35 BNSS and explains its relationship with the principles earlier laid down under Sections 41 and 41-A CrPC.

Key Takeaways for Citizens

A person should remember the following:

1. Registration of an FIR does not automatically mean that arrest is mandatory.
2. Police power is statutory power and must be exercised according to law.
3. Arrest and investigation are not synonymous.
4. Section 35 BNSS contains important safeguards against unnecessary arrest.
5. A notice under Section 35(3) BNSS is an important safeguard in cases where arrest is not required.
6. A civil dispute does not automatically become a criminal offence merely because an FIR contains criminal sections.
7. However, a dispute having civil consequences may also constitute a genuine criminal offence depending upon the facts.
8. The High Court can intervene to prevent abuse of criminal process in appropriate cases.
9. A false criminal complaint may have legal consequences, including under Section 248 BNS, where its statutory ingredients are established.
10. A person should preserve documentary evidence rather than relying solely upon oral allegations of police harassment.

Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs)

1. Can police arrest a person merely because an FIR has been registered?

No. Registration of an FIR does not by itself make arrest mandatory. In offences punishable with imprisonment up to seven years, Section 35 BNSS requires the statutory conditions relating to the necessity of arrest to be satisfied. The Supreme Court reaffirmed this position in January 2026.

2. What is Section 35(3) BNSS?

Section 35(3) provides for the issuance of a notice directing a person to appear before the police officer where arrest is not required under Section 35(1).

3. Can an FIR be quashed if it is filed to harass someone?

Yes, in an appropriate case. The High Court may exercise its inherent jurisdiction under Section 528 BNSS where continuation of the criminal proceeding amounts to abuse of process or where intervention is necessary to secure the ends of justice.

4. Does a civil dispute mean that no criminal case can be filed?

No. A transaction can have both civil and criminal consequences. The Court must examine whether the facts actually satisfy the ingredients of the alleged criminal offence.

5. What if false allegations are made against me?

The appropriate remedy depends upon the facts and stage of the case. Possible remedies may include bail, anticipatory bail, quashing proceedings, appropriate representations to senior police authorities and other legal remedies.

6. Can a person take action against a false criminal complaint?

Potentially, yes. Section 248 BNS deals with a false charge of an offence made with intent to injure. However, merely because the accused is acquitted or the case is closed does not automatically establish an offence under Section 248 BNS.

7. Can police refuse to investigate merely because the accused says that the FIR is false?

Not ordinarily. The police have a statutory duty to investigate cognizable offences. Whether an FIR is ultimately false, legally unsustainable, or malicious is a matter that may require examination through the appropriate statutory and judicial process.

8. What is the difference between misuse of law and an ordinary criminal case?

A genuine criminal case is initiated for investigation and prosecution of an alleged offence. Misuse generally refers to circumstances where legal machinery is invoked without a legitimate legal basis or is used for an improper purpose such as harassment, pressure, retaliation, or personal vendetta.

Conclusion

The criminal justice system requires two principles to operate together:

Crime must be investigated effectively, and individual liberty must be protected rigorously.

Neither principle can be sacrificed for the other.

The Supreme Court’s jurisprudence from D.K. Basu, Joginder Kumar, Lalita Kumari, Arnesh Kumar, Bhajan Lal and Neeharika Infrastructure, culminating in the important 2026 Satender Kumar Antil decision under the BNSS, demonstrates that police powers are not uncontrolled powers. They are powers regulated by statute, constitutional guarantees and judicially evolved safeguards.

For a citizen facing an allegedly false FIR, illegal arrest, police harassment, or misuse of criminal proceedings, the correct approach is not simply to allege “misuse of law”. The case should be examined carefully at three levels:

What are the actual facts?

What are the essential ingredients of the alleged offence?

Has the police or complainant acted within the limits prescribed by law?

That evidence-based approach is far more effective than a general allegation of harassment.

Ultimately, the rule of law requires not only that crime be punished, but also that the machinery created to enforce the law is itself used lawfully.

Legal Disclaimer

This article is intended for general legal awareness and educational purposes. It does not constitute legal advice or create an advocate-client relationship. The appropriate remedy in an individual case depends upon the facts, the offences invoked, the stage of investigation/proceedings, and the applicable law. Readers should obtain case-specific legal advice before taking legal action.

© Samvidhan Se Samadhaan — Legal Awareness & Knowledge Sharing