In a strongly worded judgment, the Supreme Court of India has set aside an order passed by the Allahabad High Court, calling it “one of the worst and most erroneous orders” encountered during their judicial tenures. The Supreme Court bench, comprising Justices J.B. Pardiwala and R. Mahadevan, also directed that the matter be reconsidered by a different judge of the High Court.
The case arose from a petition challenging the High Court’s refusal to quash criminal proceedings in a commercial dispute between a seller and buyer. The Supreme Court emphasized that allowing criminal prosecution in matters of a purely civil nature amounts to an abuse of the process of law.
Background of the Case
The complainant (Respondent No. 2) claimed to be an unpaid seller who had supplied thread worth ₹52.34 lakh to the petitioner. While ₹47.75 lakh was paid, the balance remained unpaid. After the police refused to register an FIR—citing it as a civil matter—the complainant filed a private criminal complaint before the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kanpur Nagar.
Following an inquiry, the Magistrate issued a process against the petitioner for an offence under Section 406 IPC (criminal breach of trust). The petitioner moved the High Court under Section 482 CrPC, seeking the quashing of the complaint. However, the High Court dismissed the plea, prompting the petitioner to approach the Supreme Court.
Supreme Court’s Sharp Criticism
The top court minced no words in criticizing the High Court’s approach. The Bench observed: With all due deference and humility at our command, we are constrained to observe that the impugned order is one of the worst and most erroneous orders that we have come across in our respective tenures as judges of this Court. The Court further questioned whether such orders were the result of extraneous considerations or sheer ignorance of the law, calling the situation unpardonable.
The Supreme Court emphasized that commercial transactions involving unpaid dues cannot be treated as criminal cases unless specific legal elements like entrustment or fraudulent intention are established. In this case, the Bench held that there was no element of entrustment to justify a charge under Section 406 IPC.
Critique of the High Court Judge’s Reasoning
The Supreme Court was particularly critical of the High Court Judge’s reasoning that criminal prosecution was justified since civil cases take longer to resolve. The apex court stated: The High Court was expected to know that well-established legal principles do not permit criminal proceedings merely because civil suits are time-consuming.
Case Remanded, Judge Barred from Criminal Matters
Setting aside the High Court’s order, the Supreme Court remanded the matter for fresh consideration and requested the Chief Justice of the Allahabad High Court to assign the case to a different judge. Additionally, the Court directed that: The concerned High Court Judge should be immediately relieved from all criminal case assignments. If the judge is to sit singly in the future, he should not be entrusted with any criminal determination.
The judge should be paired with a senior judge in a Division Bench setting. The Supreme Court justified these directives by stating that the impugned order was not an isolated incident and that it had observed multiple such erroneous rulings by the same judge over time.
Key Takeaways:
Criminal proceedings cannot be used as substitutes for civil remedies in commercial disputes. High Court orders must reflect sound legal reasoning, especially in matters affecting liberty and justice. The Supreme Court has taken an unprecedented step in restricting a sitting High Court judge from hearing criminal cases, citing judicial accountability.
This is not the first time that SC has found the HC verdict erroneous.
Rajasthan HC Judge’s Comment on Women’s Clothing (2022)
In a bail order related to a sexual harassment case, a Rajasthan High Court judge made a controversial comment suggesting that the victim wore “provocative clothing,” implying that her attire may have instigated the incident. This statement was widely condemned as victim-blaming and reflective of deep-rooted gender bias. The judiciary and civil society criticized the judgment, asserting that such observations derail the pursuit of justice and reinforce harmful stereotypes. The case reignited the discussion about the need for gender sensitization training for judges across all levels.
Allahabad HC Suggests Cow as National Animal (2021)
During a bail hearing, an Allahabad High Court judge remarked that the cow should be declared the national animal and that cow protection was essential to the nation’s interest. While the bail matter itself had no direct relevance to cow protection, the judge used the opportunity to deliver moral and cultural commentary.
Legal experts criticized the judgment for overreaching its judicial mandate and turning a routine bail hearing into a socio-political discourse. The case highlighted the need for judicial restraint and the importance of sticking to legal reasoning within courtrooms.
Gujarat High Court Judge’s Arrest Order on Advocate (2020)
A judge of the Gujarat High Court ordered the arrest of an advocate during a court proceeding, without sufficient legal justification or due process. The action was considered a misuse of judicial authority and raised serious concerns regarding the abuse of contempt powers against legal professionals. The Supreme Court took cognizance of the matter and criticized the judge’s conduct, emphasizing that such arbitrary use of power goes against the principles of natural justice and constitutional protections. The incident led to calls for refresher training and sensitization of judges about their legal and ethical boundaries.
Bombay HC ‘Skin-to-Skin’ Contact Judgment (2021)
In a shocking interpretation, the Bombay High Court ruled that groping a child without “skin-to-skin” contact would not amount to sexual assault under the POCSO Act. This judgment stunned the legal community and child rights activists, who viewed it as a narrow and regressive reading of the law.
The Supreme Court stayed the judgment and later overturned it, asserting that such interpretations defeat the purpose of protective legislation like POCSO. The case served as a wake-up call for judicial sensitivity and a proper understanding of laws meant to safeguard vulnerable populations.
At the time, SC corrects the impugned judgments of various High Courts, reminding all supremacy of law. No one is above the law, judges are to interpret the law not for making laws or opinions.
