NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court has directed for taking away criminal jurisdiction from Justice Prashant Kumar of Allahabad High Court till his retirement, while describing an order by him to allow criminal proceedings in a civil dispute concerning non payment for supply of goods as the "most erroneous", "absurd" "shocking" and "disturbing".
A bench of Justices J B Pardiwala and R Mahadevan said 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. The concerned judge shall not be assigned any criminal determination, till he demits office," the bench ordered.
"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," the bench said.
The bench pointed out it was constrained to issue the directions, keeping in mind that the instant order was not the only erroneous order of the concerned judge that it has looked into for the first time.
"Many such erroneous orders have been looked into by us over a period of time," the bench said.
Dealing with a plea by M/s Shikhar Chemicals, the court took a strong exception to the High Court's single judge order, which stated that the criminal proceedings instituted by the complainant in a case of pure civil dispute was justified because it may take considerable time for the complainant to recover the balance amount by preferring a civil suit.
"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 court wondered if it is the understanding of the High Court that ultimately if the accused is convicted, the trial court would award him the balance amount?
"The observations recorded (by the HC) are shocking. It is an extremely sad day for one and all to read the observations," the bench said.
The court said it was expected of the High Court to know the well-settled position of law that in cases of civil dispute a complainant cannot be permitted to resort to criminal proceedings as the same would amount to abuse of process of law.
The court said, it was expected of the High Court to understand the nature of the allegations levelled in the complaint.
Setting aside the High Court's order even without issuing notice, the bench remanded the plea for consideration afresh.
"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 bench said.
In its detailed order on August 4, 2025, the court requested the Chief Justice of the High Court of Allahabad to assign the matter to any other judge of the High Court as he may deem fit.
The plea challenged validity of the High Court's order of May 5, 2025, which rejected a plea for quashing criminal proceedings pending before the court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate-I, Kanpur Nagar for a balance payment of goods supplied to accused M/s Shikhar Chemicals.
The court noted the case of the complainant, was plain and simple. He claimed to be an unpaid seller. He delivered goods in the form of thread to the petitioner worth Rs 52,34,385, out of which an amount of Rs 47,75,000. However, the balance amount has not been paid, till this date. He tried to lodge an FIR but the police declined it due to civil nature of the dispute.
The Magistrate unfortunately remained unmindful of the fact that even as per the complainant’s own say the case is one of sale of goods and recovery of some balance amount, the bench said.
The court, however, said it was not surprised with the Magistrate exhibiting a complete ignorance of law but the most disturbing part of the case was the manner in which the High Court dealt with quashing petition.
