Supreme Court Bars High Court Judge, Warns Against Criminalising Civil Disputes
Allahabad High Court Judge Allowed Criminal Charges in a Business Transaction
August 6, 2025
The Supreme Court of India has barred a sitting judge of the Allahabad High Court from hearing criminal cases for the remainder of his tenure after he permitted criminal prosecution in a matter the apex court said was purely a civil dispute. The development signals a problem of legal misapplication that could affect how justice is delivered to ordinary citizens.
The case at the centre of the matter involved a financial dispute between two companies, Lalita Textile Concern and Shikhar Chemicals, as reported by The Indian Express. Lalita Textile, which supplies yarn, had claimed that Shikhar Chemicals had failed to pay the balance amount for a consignment delivered in 2019. The complainant said he had made several calls and sent multiple legal and recovery notices, but received no response. The notices were reportedly returned with remarks such as “Premises Locked,” and attempts through the GST department also yielded no result.
After being unable to get the police to register an FIR, the complainant moved a magistrate court, which issued summons under Section 406 of the Indian Penal Code, a provision meant for criminal breach of trust. The order was challenged before the high court, which upheld the magistrate’s decision and dismissed the plea seeking quashing of the criminal proceedings. The high court judge remarked that since civil suits often take time, the complainant should be allowed to initiate criminal proceedings to seek recovery. This reasoning formed the main basis of the Supreme Court’s objection and was described by the apex court as legally flawed and disturbing.
The case then reached the Supreme Court, where the bench of Justices J.B. Pardiwala and R. Mahadevan gave strong observations on the conduct of both the magistrate and the high court judge. The apex court noted that the allegations amounted to a civil dispute arising from a sale transaction and did not fall within the ambit of criminal breach of trust.
It also questioned the judge’s understanding of the difference between cheating and criminal breach of trust under the Indian Penal Code. Cheating involves deception at the time of the transaction, whereas breach of trust requires proof that goods or property were entrusted to someone and were then dishonestly misused or withheld. In this case, the transaction was a sale of goods, not a situation where goods were entrusted for safekeeping or specific use. The supplier delivered goods in the ordinary course of business, and the buyer failed to pay the remaining amount. Since there was no entrustment of goods and no evidence of deception at the outset, neither offence clearly applies.
The court concluded that the order was among the worst and most erroneous it had encountered. It remarked that the judge had made a mockery of justice and that such orders raised concerns about whether they stemmed from legal ignorance or some external influence. The Supreme Court, having examined earlier cases by the same judge, decided to bar him from handling any criminal matters for the rest of his tenure. It also ordered the case to be reassigned to a different high court judge for fresh consideration.
Misuse of criminal law in civil disputes can threaten the balance and predictability of the legal system. A financial disagreement between two companies should be addressed through civil courts that are designed to handle such matters. The idea that a complainant can pursue criminal charges to speed up debt recovery undermines the purpose of civil litigation and encourages legal shortcuts that can harm both business and individual rights.
Citizens who run businesses or are involved in commercial transactions need to understand the limits of the criminal justice system. Pursuing criminal action in such cases may lead to dismissal of the case, legal expenses and reputational damage.
There is also a cautionary note in this case for those who might become the target of such misuse. If someone receives a summons for a criminal offence in what appears to be a commercial dispute, they should seek legal advice promptly. There is a legal remedy to challenge such misuse through quashing petitions in higher courts. Citizens should be aware that being named in a criminal case for a civil matter is not a closed road and that higher judicial forums can provide relief.
The Supreme Court’s order also brings attention to the importance of competent judicial handling at every level. Lower courts and high courts are often the first points of contact for ordinary litigants. A poorly reasoned order or misapplication of law can cause years of hardship. Judicial accountability is essential for ensuring that people do not become victims of erroneous interpretations that lead to prolonged litigation or unjust criminal prosecution.
Public confidence in the judiciary depends on consistency and adherence to established legal principles. Citizens have the right to expect that their cases will be heard with legal competence and clarity. Judges making decisions that conflict with basic legal principles create uncertainty in law and cause harm to all who rely on the courts for justice.
You have just read a News Briefing by Newsreel Asia, written to cut through the noise and present a single story for the day that matters to you. Certain briefings, based on media reports, seek to keep readers informed about events across India, others offer a perspective rooted in humanitarian concerns and some provide our own exclusive reporting. We encourage you to read the News Briefing each day. Our objective is to help you become not just an informed citizen, but an engaged and responsible one.
