The Supreme Court has re-listed a case where it strongly criticised Justice Prashant Kumar of the Allahabad High Court for permitting criminal prosecution as a method to recover debts in what was a civil dispute.
The Supreme Court re-listed a case in which it recently criticized Justice Prashant Kumar of the Allahabad High Court for his ruling that allowed criminal prosecution as an alternative for recovering debts in civil disputes.
In a significant ruling on August 4, the bench comprising Justice JB Pardiwala and Justice R Mahadevan directed the Chief Justice of the High Court to relieve Justice Kumar of his criminal roster duties until his retirement and to assign him to a Division Bench alongside a more experienced senior judge.
The Court ordered,
“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,”
According to information from the Supreme Court’s website, the case is now scheduled for a hearing on Friday. It had been previously disposed of.
Media reports indicate that some Supreme Court judges have expressed their objections to the directives issued by Justice Pardiwala’s bench. The bench made pointed remarks regarding the High Court judge’s grasp of criminal law.
It noted,
“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’s order arose from a plea contesting the High Court’s dismissal of an application filed by M/S Shikhar Chemicals (the petitioner) seeking to quash criminal proceedings linked to a commercial transaction.
The respondent in the case had supplied thread valued at Rs.52,34,385 to the petitioner, of which Rs.47,75,000 had allegedly been paid. A complaint was subsequently filed with a magistrate, claiming the remaining balance was unpaid.
The petitioner approached the High Court to quash the proceedings, arguing that the dispute was fundamentally civil and had been wrongly interpreted as criminal. However, the High Court dismissed this plea.
In his May 5 ruling, Justice Kumar stated that requiring the complainant to pursue a civil suit would be “very unreasonable” due to the lengthy nature of such suits, thereby justifying criminal prosecution.
The Supreme Court, On August 4, deemed this reasoning untenable, set aside the High Court’s order, and remanded the matter for reconsideration by a different judge.
Additionally, on August 4, the High Court ordered a temporary adjustment to the roster, assigning Justice Kumar to sit with Justice MC Tripathi on August 7 and 8 to address land acquisition, development authority writs, and environmental matters. Justice Dinesh Pathak is currently handling the criminal cases that were previously assigned to Justice Kumar.
Earlier, The bench was directed that the case be reconsidered and stated the following operative directions:
- The petition was partially allowed, and the impugned order dated May 5, 2025, was set-aside.
- The matter was remanded to the High Court for fresh adjudication in Application U/S 482 No. 2507 of 2024.
- The Supreme Court requested the Chief Justice of the Allahabad High Court to assign the case to a different judge.
- Moreover, it mandated that the concerned judge be immediately stripped of any criminal jurisdiction. Should the judge be required to sit singly in the future, no criminal cases should be assigned to him.
- He should only serve as part of a Division Bench with a senior judge until he demits office.
- The Registry was instructed to promptly send a copy of the order to the Chief Justice of the Allahabad High Court.
In response to the Supreme Court’s order, the Allahabad High Court has issued a supplementary roster, adjusting the jurisdictions of the judge and assigning him to a Division Bench.
Case Title: M/s. Shikhar Chemicals vs. The State of Uttar Pradesh
Diary No.: 37528/2025