New Delhi: In a rare act of judicial censure, the Supreme Court on Monday ordered the Allahabad High Court not to allocate criminal work to a sitting HC judge. This direction came after the top court upbraided the judge for allowing criminal prosecution in what it deemed a purely civil dispute.
Calling the reasoning behind the High Court’s decision “shocking”, the apex court set aside the judge’s order without even issuing a notice to the other side and directed that the judge be stripped of all criminal jurisdiction for the rest of his tenure.
A Bench of Justices J.B. Pardiwala and R. Mahadevan were hearing a special leave petition filed by M/s Shikhar Chemicals challenging a 5 May order of the Allahabad High Court which refused to quash criminal proceedings arising out of a commercial transaction with M/s Lalita Textiles. The Supreme Court held that the legal reasoning adopted by the High Court was fundamentally flawed and amounted to a “travesty of justice”.
Also read: Supreme Court slams UP govt for ‘clandestine manner’ of diverting Banke Bihari Temple’s funds
‘Shocking’ Understanding of Law
The apex court was particularly disturbed by the findings in paragraph 12 of the High Court’s order, where Justice Prashant Kumar held that requiring the complainant to pursue a civil remedy would be “very unreasonable” due to the time and cost involved.
“We are shocked by the findings recorded in paragraph 12 of the impugned order. The judge has gone to the extent of stating that asking the complainant to pursue civil remedy would be very unreasonable as civil suits take a long time, and therefore the complainant may be permitted to institute criminal proceedings for recovery,” the Supreme Court noted.
The Bench emphasised it had no hesitation in interfering with the High Court’s ruling “even without issuing notice” to the respondents.
SC orders withdrawal of Judge’s criminal roster
In an extraordinary directive, the Supreme Court “requested” the Chief Justice of the Allahabad High Court to immediately withdraw Justice Prashant Kumar’s criminal roster, and ensure he does not preside over criminal matters henceforth.
“We request the Honourable Chief Justice of the High Court to assign this matter to any other judge. We further request the Chief Justice to immediately withdraw the present determination of the concerned judge,” the court said.
The Bench further directed, “The concerned judge should be made to sit in a division bench with a seasoned senior of the High Court. In any view of the matter, the concerned judge should not be assigned any criminal determination till he demits office. If at all he is to sit as a single judge, he shall not be assigned any criminal determination.”
The dispute: Civil or criminal?
The case stems from a commercial transaction between Lalita Textiles and Shikhar Chemicals. Lalita Textiles claimed it had supplied thread worth Rs 52.34 lakh to the petitioner, of which Rs 47.75 lakh was paid. The remaining Rs 7.23 lakh was allegedly unpaid, prompting Lalita Textiles to file a criminal complaint under Section 406 of the Indian Penal Code, alleging criminal breach of trust.
Shikhar Chemicals approached the High Court to quash the criminal complaint, arguing that the issue was purely civil in nature and was being improperly presented as criminal. However, the High Court dismissed the petition.
In his order, Justice Kumar cited the complainant’s limited financial capacity and the lengthy nature of civil litigation as reasons to justify criminal proceedings. “O.P. no.2 appears to be a very small business firm and for him, the aforesaid amount along with interest is a huge amount. In case, subject to filing civil suit, O.P. no.2 will not be in position to pursue the civil litigation. In case, O.P. no.2 files a civil suit firstly, it will take years for it to see any ray of hope and secondly, he will have to put more money to pursue the litigation. To be more precise it would seem like good money chasing bad money,” the High Court had observed.
The judge further held that referring the matter to a civil court would “amount to travesty of justice” and could cause “irreparable loss” to the complainant.
The three-page High Court order noted prior mediation attempts and cited precedents to support its view that a commercial transaction does not automatically preclude the presence of criminal intent—especially when civil litigation would impose financial strain on the complainant.
Supreme Court: Order set aside, matter remanded
The Supreme Court, however, rejected this line of reasoning outright. “This is the understanding of a High Court judge—that even ultimately, rightly or wrongly, if the accused is convicted, the trial court will award him the balance amount. The findings recorded in para 12 are shocking,” the apex court observed.
Accordingly, the Bench allowed the petition in part, set aside the High Court’s ruling, and remanded the matter for fresh consideration by a different judge of the Allahabad High Court. “We partly allow the petition and set aside the impugned order passed by the High Court. We remand the matter to the High Court for fresh consideration of the criminal miscellaneous application,” it said.
The Court also directed its registry to forward a copy of the order to the Chief Justice of the Allahabad High Court.
The court reiterated that the challenges of civil recovery do not justify the misuse of criminal proceedings as a tool for pressure.
(Edited by Viny Mishra)
Also read: Something’s up in Allahabad High Court. And everybody wants to know