Meenakshi Shukla
On August 4, 2025, the Supreme Court of India strongly criticised Justice Prashant Kumar of the Allahabad High Court, overturning his order that allowed criminal proceedings in what was essentially a civil dispute. The apex court, in M/S Shikhar Chemicals v. The State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr., described the High Court’s reasoning as “shocking” and “unacceptable in law,” and took the unprecedented step of directing the Chief Justice of the High Court to strip the concerned judge of all criminal case responsibilities.
The case originated from a complaint filed by M/S Lalita Textile Concern, a yarn supplier, against M/S Shikhar Chemicals. The complainant alleged that goods worth ₹52.34 lakh were supplied between April and July 2019, but the buyer paid only ₹47.75 lakh, leaving an unpaid balance of ₹4.59 lakh plus accrued interest. The matter was brought before a magistrate, who took cognisance and summoned the accused under Section 406 IPC (criminal breach of trust).
When M/S Shikhar Chemicals challenged the initiation of criminal proceedings before the Allahabad High Court, Justice Kumar dismissed the application, reasoning in paragraph 12 of his order that pursuing a civil suit would be “unreasonable” due to cost and delay, and thus criminal prosecution was justified.
Supreme Court’s Criticism: “One of the worst and most erroneous orders”
The Supreme Court Bench comprising Justices JB Pardiwala and R Mahadevan minced no words. In their words:
“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.”
Referring to the High Court’s finding that a criminal case was justified due to the time and expense of civil litigation, the Supreme Court held that such a view “amounts to a mockery of justice.” It emphasized the settled principle that criminal proceedings cannot be used to recover civil debts.
Citing the landmark case State of Gujarat v. Jaswantlal Nathalal 1968 SCR (2) 408, the Court reaffirmed that a simple sale transaction does not constitute “entrustment,” which is a necessary element to attract the provisions of Section 406 IPC:
“A mere transaction of sale cannot amount to an entrustment… After delivery of the cement, the Government had neither any right nor dominion over it.”
Directions to Strip Judge of Criminal Roster
In an unprecedented step, the Supreme Court ordered the Chief Justice of the Allahabad High Court to:
- Withdraw the current criminal order forthwith from Justice Kumar.
- See that he delivers judgments only in a division bench with a senior judge
- Ensure he sits only on a division bench with a senior judge.
- Bar him from being assigned any criminal determination for the remainder of his tenure, even in single-judge matters.
The Bench noted:
“We have been constrained to issue directions… keeping in mind that the impugned order is not the only erroneous order of the concerned Judge that we have looked into for the first time. Many such erroneous orders have been looked into by us over a period of time.”
Case name – M/S Shikhar Chemicals v. The State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr.
Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No.– 11445 of 2025
Bench – Justice J.B. Pardiwala and Justice R. Mahadevan
Instagram: Click here
LinkedIn: Click here
For Collaboration and Business: info.desikaanoon@gmail.com