Supreme Court To Rehear Case In Which Harsh Order Was Passed Against Allahabad HC Judge

The Supreme Court will rehear the case in which it passed an unprecedented order that a Judge of the Allahabad High Court should be made to sit with a senior Judge and that criminal jurisdiction should not be allotted to him till his retirement.

The matter, which was disposed of by the harsh order passed on August 4, is now seen as re-listed for tomorrow before the bench comprising Justice JB Pardiwala and Justice R Mahadevan.  The matter is listed under the head "Direction Matters" tomorrow.

The status of the case is now being shown as "pending" on the Supreme Court's website.

 The Supreme Court's order had come under criticism that it was an overreach of judicial powers and an interference with the roster powers of the High Court Chief Justice.

On August 4, a bench comprising Justice JB Pardiwala and Justice R Mahadevan took exception to an order passed by Justice Prashant Kumar of the Allahabad High Court by which a criminal complaint was refused to be quashed by saying that the civil suit remedy to recover the money was not effective.

While setting aside the High Court's order, the bench observed that the High Court Judge, who passed the order, should be made to sit with a senior judge in a division bench. Further, the Court observed that no criminal matters should be allotted to the High Court Judge. It was observed that the judge had made a "mockery of justice".

"The judge concerned has not only cut a sorry figure for himself but has made a mockery of justice. 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 Court was hearing a special leave petition against an order passed by Justice Kumar, wherein it was hearing a plea for the quashing of the summons under Section 406 of the Indian Penal Code made by the present appellant.

The brief facts are that Lalita Textiles(the Respondent before the High Court) filed a criminal complaint against the appellant, alleging that it had supplied thread used for manufacturing to the appellant and that an outstanding amount of Rs. 7,23,711/- was due.

Subsequently, the statement of the Respondent/Complainant was recorded and summons were issued against the Appellant. When the Appellant approached the High Court, Justice Kumar suggested that since the Complainant is a "small business firm" and that the amount involved is huge, it would be a travesty of justice to refer the matter as a civil dispute between the parties.

The High Court observed in the order: "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. If this Court allows the matter to be referred to civil court on account of civil dispute between the parties, it would amount to travesty of justice and O.P. no.2 would suffer irreparable loss and he might even not be in a position to emerge from the financial constraints to pursue the matter."

When the matter was taken up before the Supreme Court, Justice Pardiwala passed certain strong remarks against Justice Kumar.

While referring to para 12 of the High Court's order, Justice Pardiwala's bench observed in the order: "The judge has gone to the extent of saying that asking the complainant to pursue civil remedy for the purpose of recovery of balance amount would be very unreasonable, as a civil suit may take a long time before it is decided. Therefore, complainant should be permitted to institute a criminal proceedings before the purpose of recovery of balance amount. 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. We are left with no other option than to set aside the order even without issuing notice to the Respondents. In the result, 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. We request the Hon'ble Chief Justice of the High Court to assign this matter to any other judge of the High Court."

The Supreme Court further observed in the order :

"We further request the Hon'ble Chief Justice to immediately withdraw the present determination of the concerned judge. 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 be to sit as a single judge, he shall not be assigned any criminal determination. Registry to forward one copy of the order to the Hon'ble Chief Justice of Allahabad High Court."

Case Details: M/S. SHIKHAR CHEMICALS v THE STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH AND ANR|SLP(Crl) No. 11445/2025