New Delhi, August 4, 2025 — In a strong rebuke to the functioning of a sitting judge of the Allahabad High Court, the Supreme Court of India on Monday made scathing remarks while hearing a Special Leave Petition (SLP) challenging an order that allowed the continuation of criminal proceedings in a matter the apex court found to be clearly civil in nature.
The SLP was filed against the judgment dated May 5, 2025, in Application U/S 482 No. 2507 of 2024, in which the High Court had permitted the complainant to proceed with criminal litigation despite acknowledging that the underlying dispute involved financial recovery—a domain typically handled through civil proceedings.
A Bench comprising Justice J.B. Pardiwala and Justice R. Mahadevan, while hearing the matter in open court, set aside the Allahabad High Court’s decision and issued a damning critique of the reasoning adopted by the concerned judge.
High Court’s Observations Deemed “Shocking” by Apex Court
The Supreme Court expressed grave concern over Paragraph 12 of the impugned High Court judgment, where the judge had reasoned that referring the complainant to a civil court for recovery would be unfair, as it would require additional financial investment and prolonged litigation. The High Court judge had remarked:
“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 apex court took serious exception to this line of reasoning. Justice Pardiwala observed:
“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 passed 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, 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.”
Supreme Court Sets Aside Order, Reprimands Judicial Conduct
Finding the observations untenable in law and jurisprudentially flawed, the Supreme Court declared that it had no choice but to set aside the High Court order “even without issuing notice to the respondents.”
The bench directed that the matter be reconsidered afresh and passed the following operative directions:
- The petition was partly 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.
- Furthermore, the top court directed that the concerned judge should be immediately divested of any criminal jurisdiction.
- If required to sit singly in the future, no criminal cases should be assigned to the judge.
- The judge should only sit as part of a Division Bench with a seasoned senior judge until demitting office.
- The Registry was directed to send a copy of the order to the Chief Justice of the Allahabad High Court without delay.
In compliance with the Order of the Supreme Court, the Allahabad High Court has issued a supplementary roster, wherein the jurisdiction of the Judge has been changed and has been assigned in a Division Bench.
Case Details:
Diary No. – 37528/2025 (M/S. SHIKHAR CHEMICALS vs. THE STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH)
