"What Is Wrong With Indian Judiciary At The Level of High Court?": Supreme Court Bars Allahabad HC Judge From Hearing Criminal Cases

The Supreme Court directed the Allahabad High Court Chief Justice to make Justice Prashant Kumar sit in a Division Bench with a seasoned senior judge of the High Court and also observed that he shall not be assigned any criminal determination, till he demits office.

In the concerned case, the concerned High Court Judge refused to quash a criminal case in a civil dispute of commercial nature on the grounds that recovery of amount in a civil suit may take a long time.

The Bench of Justice J.B Pardiwala and Justice R. Mahadevan observed, “Is it the understanding of the High Court that ultimately if the accused is convicted, the trial court would award him the balance amount?…It is an extremely sad day for one and all to read the observations contained in para 12 of the impugned order. It was expected of the High Court to know the well-settled position of law that in cases of civil dispute a complainant cannot be permitted to resort to criminal proceedings as the same would amount to abuse of process of law. It was expected of the High Court to understand the nature of the allegations levelled in the complaint. In substance the High Court has said in so many words that the criminal proceedings instituted by the complainant in a case of pure civil dispute is justified because it may take considerable time for the complainant to recover the balance amount by preferring a civil suit.”

Case Brief

The Petitioner were delivered certain goods in the form of thread worth Rs. Rs.52,34,385/- out of which an amount of Rs.47,75,000/- had to be paid by the Petitioner to the Complainant.

The Complainant was an unpaid seller and for the recovery of the balance amount he thought fit to file a criminal complaint and institute criminal proceedings. However, the FIR was not lodged by the Police as the dispute was purely a civil dispute.

Later, the Additional CJM issue process for the offence of criminal breach of trust under Section 406 IPC. The said order of the Magistrate was challenged before the High Court of Allahabad, but the said application was rejected by the High Court of (Coram of Prashant Kumar).

Court’s Analysis

At the outset, the Court said, “We are at our wits’ end” to understand what is wrong with the Indian Judiciary at the level of High Court. At times we are left wondering whether such orders are passed on some extraneous considerations or it is sheer ignorance of law. Whatever it be, passing of such absurd and erroneous orders is something unpardonable.”

The Supreme Court was of the opinion that it was expected of the Additional CJM to know that in a case of sale transaction where is the question of any entrustment of goods so as to bring the case within the ambit of criminal breach of trust punishable under Section 406 of the IPC.

“However, we expected at least the High Court to understand the fine distinction between the two offences and the necessary ingredients to constitute the offence of cheating and criminal breach of trust”, the Bench said.

The Court emphasized on the observations made by the High Court while allowing the criminal proceedings in a civil dispute of commercial nature.

“The Judge has gone to the extent of saying that asking the complainant to pursue civil remedy for the purpose of recovery of the balance amount will be very unreasonable as civil suit may take a long time before it is decided and, therefore, the complainant should be permitted to institute criminal proceedings for the purpose of recovery of the balance amount”, the Bench added.

The Court noted that it was expected of High Court to know the well-settled position of law that in cases of civil dispute a complainant cannot be permitted to resort to criminal proceedings as the same would amount to abuse of process of law.

Accordingly, the Supreme Court remand the matter to High Court for fresh consideration and requested the Chief Justice of the High Court of Allahabad to assign the matter to any other Judge of the High Court as he may deem fit.

“The Chief Justice shall make the concerned judge sit in a Division Bench with a seasoned senior judge of the High Court. We further direct that the concerned judge shall not be assigned any criminal determination, till he demits office. If at all at some point of time, he is to be made to sit as a single judge, he shall not be assigned any criminal determination”, the Court ordered.

The Supreme Court also clarified that the directions were given keeping in mind that the impugned order is not the only erroneous order of the concerned Judge that we have looked into for the first time. Many such erroneous orders have been looked into by us over a period of time.

Accordingly, the SLP was disposed of.

Cause Title: M/S Shikhar Chemicals V. The State of Uttar Pradesh

Click here to read/download Order