Supreme Court Rebukes High Court Judge, Orders Him to Sit with a Senior Judge as Junior Member and Bar Criminal Matters from His Roster

The Supreme Court intervened critically in a decision issued by the Allahabad High Court where a judge had declined to quash criminal proceedings under Section 406 of the Indian Penal Code, on the ground that the aggrieved party could instead pursue a civil claim for recovery. The apex court found the reasoning deeply troubling and termed the High Court order “shocking.” The Supreme Court bench, comprising Justices JB Pardiwala and R. Mahadevan, set aside the impugned order and remanded the case for reconsideration by another judge, expressly excluding the original judge from hearing similar matters.

The dispute originated when Lalita Textiles filed a criminal complaint alleging non-payment of ₹7,23,711 for thread supplied to the accused. On moving the High Court for quashing of the summons, the judge—Justice Prashant Kumar—examined the matter and concluded that the complainant was a small business and that requiring it to file a civil suit would be oppressive and futile. The judge stated that a civil suit would likely drag on, causing financial burden and further hardship, rendering the criminal complaint an equitable remedy. The judge’s reasoning emphasized the significant interest dues and the prohibitive costs that a civil lawsuit would entail, suggesting that allowing criminal proceedings would serve justice better in these circumstances.

The Supreme Court rejected this approach, noting that the High Court judge elevated convenience over legal principle and essentially treated criminal proceedings as a substitute for civil recovery—a role beyond judicial competence under criminal jurisprudence. Holding that defendants’ acquittal or guilty verdict in a criminal case does not entitle recovery of money, the Supreme Court ruled that criminal justice cannot be warped into a shortcut for monetary restitution. The Supreme Court’s verdict was absolute and immediate—there was no notice to the respondents, purely due to the gravity of the judicial error.

In a landmark directive, the Supreme Court requested the Chief Justice of the Allahabad High Court to withdraw criminal matters from the judge who passed the flawed order. It further mandated that the judge must now occupy a junior position in a division bench, paired with a senior judge, and that he should not hear any criminal matters if assigned solo henceforth. The petition was remitted to the Allahabad High Court for fresh adjudication by a different judge entirely, ensuring that future hearings on the matter proceed untainted by earlier judicial misconduct.

This intervention reflects strong institutional concern: the High Court’s role is not to dole out what may seem equitable relief via criminal procedure, particularly when a civil remedy exists under statute. By instructing a remand, reallocation of judicial duties, and exclusion from criminal case rosters, the Supreme Court underscored the sanctity of appropriate procedure and the essential separation of civil and criminal jurisdiction.

The case has now returned to the Allahabad High Court for rehearing. The accused will face a fresh determination of the application to quash under Section 406, before a judge unconnected to the earlier flawed reasoning. Meanwhile, the Supreme Court’s order stands as a stern rebuke to improper judicial activism and reiterates that the powers of criminal courts must be exercised strictly within defined limits.