The Supreme Court strongly criticised an Allahabad High Court judge for allowing criminal proceedings in a civil dispute. It questioned his logic and ordered immediate withdrawal of his criminal jurisdiction, remanding the case for fresh consideration.
In a strong criticism of how a sitting judge of the Allahabad High Court handled a case, the Supreme Court of India made sharp remarks on Monday. This happened during the hearing of a Special Leave Petition (SLP) that challenged a High Court order allowing criminal proceedings to continue in a case which the Supreme Court felt was clearly a civil matter.
The SLP was filed against a judgment dated May 5, 2025, in Application U/S 482 No. 2507 of 2024, where the High Court allowed the complainant to pursue criminal litigation despite acknowledging that the core issue involved financial recovery, typically addressed through civil proceedings.
A Bench consisting of Justice J.B. Pardiwala and Justice R. Mahadevan, while hearing the case in open court, set-aside the Allahabad High Court’s decision and criticized the reasoning of the presiding judge.
The Supreme Court expressed serious concern over Paragraph 12 of the contested High Court judgment, where the judge argued that referring the complainant to a civil court for recovery would be unjust, as it would entail additional financial burdens and prolonged litigation.
The High Court judge stated,
“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… it would amount to travesty of justice.”
The Supreme Court found this reasoning unacceptable. Justice Pardiwala noted,
“The judge has gone to the extent of saying that asking the complainant to pursue civil remedy for the purpose of recovery of his balance amount will be very unreasonable… Is it the understanding of the 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.”
The Supreme Court delivered the following order in open court,
The judge has gone to the extent of saying that asking the complainant to pursue civil remedy for the purpose of recovery of his 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. Is it the understanding of the 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 but to set aside this order even without issuing notice to the respondents. In the result, we partly allow this 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 Number 2507 of 2024. We request the Honourable Chief Justice of the High Court to assign this matter to any other judge of the High Court. We further request the Honourable 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 senior, with a seasoned senior judge of the High Court. In any view of the matter, 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. Registry to forward one copy of this order to Honourable the Chief Justice of Allahabad High Court at the earliest.”
Finding the observations untenable in law and flawed in jurisprudence, the Supreme Court declared it had no alternative but to set aside the High Court order “even without issuing notice to the respondents.”
Read Also: Delhi High Court Judges Seek Transfers
The bench 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
Read Attachment