Top Court Bars High Court Judge From Hearing Criminal Cases Till Retirement

NDTV

a day ago

New Delhi:
In an unprecedented order, the Supreme Court has stripped criminal matters of the roster of a Allahabad High Court judge "till he demits office" after he "erroneously" upheld summons of criminal nature in a civil dispute.
Taking stern view on the order passed by the judge, a bench of Justices J B Pardiwala and R Mahadevan directed removal of criminal matters from his roster till his retirement while tasking him to sit with a senior judge in a division bench.
The high court judge had refused to quash a magistrate's summoning order against a company which was accused of not paying the balance monetary sum in a business transaction of civil nature.
He said asking the complainant to pursue civil remedy for recovering the amount was unreasonable being time intensive.
Calling the order passed by the high court judge "erroneous", the top court said the judge went ahead to the extent of saying that the complainant should be permitted to institute criminal proceedings for the purpose of recovery of the balance amount.
The top court said the high court order was one of the "worst and most erroneous" orders that it came across in their respective tenures as judges of the top court.
"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 bench said.
The top court was hearing a challenge to high court's order which dismissed an application filed by one M/S Shikhar Chemicals seeking to quash summoning order in a case of commercial transaction.
In this case, the complainant (Lalita Textiles) delivered goods in the form of thread to Shikhar Chemicals worth Rs 52.34 lakh of which an amount of Rs 47.75 lakh came to be paid, however, the balance amount has not been paid, till date.
Lalita Textiles filed a criminal complaint for the recovery of the balance amount.
Thereafter, the complainant's statement was recorded and a magisterial court issued summons against the applicant.
The company moved the high court against the order, contending the dispute was purely civil in nature.
The high court, however, rejected the plea of the applicant.
On August 4, the top court observed it was expected of the high court to know the well-settled position of law that in cases of civil disputes a complainant cannot be permitted to resort to criminal proceedings as the same would amount to abuse of process of law.
Terming the high court's take on the issue as "shocking", the bench said, "It is an extremely sad day for one and all to read the observations contained in para 12 of the impugned order." The order continued, "It was expected of the high court to understand the nature of the allegations levelled in the complaint. In substance the high court has said in so many words that the criminal proceedings instituted by the complainant in a case of pure civil dispute is justified because it may take considerable time for the complainant to recover the balance amount by preferring a civil suit." The bench said in such circumstances it was left with no other option but to set aside the high court order even without issuing notice to the respondents.
"We request the the Chief Justice of the High Court of Allahabad to assign this matter to any other Judge of the High Court as he may deem fit. The Chief Justice of High Court shall immediately withdraw the present criminal determination from the concerned Judge. The Chief Justice shall make the concerned judge sit in a Division Bench with a seasoned senior judge of the High Court (sic)," the top court said.
The bench further directed that the judge not be assigned any criminal matter, till he demitted 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." Saying it was "constrained" to pass such directions, the top court noted it was not the only "erroneous order of the judge" that it came across for the first time.
"Many such erroneous orders have been looked into by us over a period of time," the bench lamented.