The Supreme Court has taken strong exception to an order passed by a single judge of the Allahabad High Court, resulting in the judge being effectively barred from hearing criminal cases until retirement. A bench of Justices J.B. Pardiwala and R. Mahadevan expressed grave concerns and shock over the High Court's order, deeming it "one of the worst and most erroneous orders" they had encountered in their tenures.
The case before the High Court involved a dispute arising from a commercial transaction between M/s Shikhar Chemicals and M/s Lalita Textiles. Lalita Textiles had filed a criminal complaint against Shikhar Chemicals, alleging non-payment of dues amounting to ₹7.23 lakh for supplied goods, even though a significant portion (₹47.75 lakh) of the total invoice (₹52.34 lakh) had already been paid. Justice Prashant Kumar of the Allahabad High Court refused to quash the criminal proceedings, suggesting that pursuing a civil remedy would be time-consuming and unreasonable. The High Court judge went so far as to say that the complainant should be allowed to institute criminal proceedings to recover the balance amount.
The Supreme Court strongly criticized this approach, emphasizing that criminal proceedings should not be used as a tool for debt recovery in what is essentially a civil dispute. The apex court found the High Court's reasoning to be fundamentally flawed and a "travesty of justice". The Supreme Court bench was shocked by the High Court's observation that requiring the complainant to pursue a civil remedy would be "very unreasonable" due to the time and costs involved. The Supreme Court noted that the High Court's judgment displayed a "complete misunderstanding of legal remedies" and warned that such views could distort the balance between civil and criminal jurisprudence.
In an unusual move, the Supreme Court directed the Chief Justice of the Allahabad High Court to immediately withdraw all criminal cases from Justice Kumar's roster and assign him to a division bench with a senior judge. Furthermore, the Supreme Court explicitly stated that Justice Kumar should not be assigned any criminal matters until his retirement. The Supreme Court's order effectively prevents Justice Kumar from presiding over criminal cases for the remainder of his tenure, a rare and significant intervention. The Supreme Court wondered whether such orders are passed on some extraneous considerations or it is sheer ignorance of law. The bench stated that passing such absurd and erroneous orders is unpardonable.
The Supreme Court's decision highlights its concern over the growing trend of using criminal proceedings to settle civil disputes and underscores the importance of maintaining the distinction between civil and criminal law. The order serves as a strong message to the judiciary to exercise caution and ensure that criminal law is not weaponized for purposes outside its intended scope.
