The Supreme Court set aside a Rajasthan High Court order denying anticipatory bail to a couple, calling the matter a civil dispute wrongly given a criminal twist. Justice JB Pardiwala chose laughter over anger while criticising the misuse of criminal law.
New Delhi: On August 13, the Supreme Court on Wednesday cancelled a Rajasthan High Court order that had refused anticipatory bail to a couple in a matter that the apex court found was actually a civil dispute but was wrongly turned into a criminal case.
The case was heard by Justice JB Pardiwala, who was sitting with Justice R Mahadevan. While reading the case papers, Justice Pardiwala remarked,
“We are not going to lose our cool today. Today, we are controlling like anything. The medicine is to laugh,”
and then laughed out loud in the courtroom.
He later added,
“We are controlling like anything”
and said he would laugh it off this time.
This reaction came in the backdrop of a recent controversy involving Justice Pardiwala and Justice Prashant Kumar of the Allahabad High Court.
Earlier this month, Justice Pardiwala had removed all criminal cases from Justice Kumar’s roster after finding that he had allowed a criminal case to continue even though it was purely a civil dispute.
However, after a request from Chief Justice of India BR Gavai, Justice Pardiwala recalled his directions and clarified that he did not intend to embarrass Justice Kumar, also acknowledging that deciding the roster was the Chief Justice’s prerogative in the High Court.
In today’s matter, the Supreme Court was hearing an appeal by a couple against the High Court’s refusal to grant them anticipatory bail. The FIR was filed over an alleged unpaid balance for a plywood consignment.
The complainant claimed Rs 3.5 lakh had been paid, but Rs 12.5 lakh was still unpaid. The FIR was registered under Sections 420 (cheating), 406 (criminal breach of trust), and 120B (criminal conspiracy) of the Indian Penal Code.
After reading the FIR, the Bench observed that the only possible allegation was cheating. The judges noted,
“It is but obvious that the only submission before the High Court could be that it is a case of civil dispute. There is no question of criminal breach of trust once there is a sale transaction. This is a settled position of law.”
The Supreme Court was also unhappy with the reasoning in the High Court order, especially the part where the public prosecutor said recovery of the Rs 12.5 lakh balance was not possible because the accused had protection from arrest. Justice Pardiwala again laughed while reading this part aloud and remarked,
“What we have understood is that according to the State, police machinery is required for the purpose of recovery of the balance amount. We need not say anything further in the matter. Ordinarily, we do not set aside orders of the High Court denying bail. But this is an order we deem fit to set aside.”
During the hearing, the State counsel clarified that his only submission before the High Court was that the appellants had absconded. Justice Pardiwala replied that absconding could be due to fear and that this did not prove a criminal offence.
He asked,
“Just because he had to pay some amount to that seller, will police come and pick us up? Why do you need the services of the police in this matter?”
Towards the end, Justice Pardiwala expressed concern over the misuse of criminal law, saying,
“Had the High Court applied a little mind, we would not have been bothered by this unnecessary litigation. Party had to come to the Supreme Court, spend money for engaging a lawyer, we had to read the matter, we had to dictate the order and there could be multiple such orders. Should we not save this unnecessary litigation?”
ALSO READ: Day After Stray Dog Ruling, Supreme Court Bans Leftover Food in SC Premises
In his earlier order in the Allahabad High Court matter, Justice Pardiwala had strongly criticised the reasoning adopted there, stating,
“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 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.”
While today’s case seemed similar, Justice Pardiwala chose humour over anger, marking the difference with laughter instead of sharp criticism.
Click Here to Read Our Reports on Stray Dogs
