Abuse of rights is one of the fundamental legal concepts situated at the boundary between the lawful exercise of rights and the realization of socially harmful conduct. This phenomenon occurs when the holder of a right—whether a private individual or a public authority—exercises a legal or Sharīʿa-based entitlement in a manner contrary to the objectives of the Legislator or the lawmaker, thereby causing harm to others or undermining public order. In private law, abuse of rights manifests itself in forms such as unjust contractual practices, harmful exercises of ownership, and instrumental use of family rights, whereas in public law it primarily relates to the misuse of governmental and administrative powers and the violation of fundamental rights of citizens. Adopting an analytical–comparative and intra-systemic approach, this article examines the jurisprudential foundations and enforcement mechanisms of abuse of rights in Iranian public and private law, with particular emphasis on the capacity of Imami criminal jurisprudence to justify a criminal response to such conduct. The jurisprudential framework of the study is grounded in principles such as lā ḍarar wa lā ḍirār (no harm), causation (tasbīb), negation of domination (nafy al-sabīl), and the preservation of social order (ḥifẓ al-niẓām), which collectively provide a basis for criminal intervention against harmful abuses of rights. The findings indicate that although civil and administrative sanctions play a significant role in controlling abuse of rights, in cases where such conduct leads to serious disruption of public order or widespread infringement of rights, the imposition of discretionary criminal sanctions (taʿzīr) from both jurisprudential and Iranian criminal law perspectives is not only justified but necessary. Ultimately, the article emphasizes the need for coherence among jurisprudential, criminal, and administrative enforcement mechanisms and for designing an integrated framework to effectively address abuse of rights