The decision of the top court came after Justice Kumar allowed criminal proceedings in a civil matter.
Using strong language against Justice Kumar, a bench of Justices J.B. Pardiwala and R. Mahadevan termed the judgment passed by Justice Kumar as “one of the worst and the most erroneous orders we have come across”.
“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 the High Court,” the bench harshly remarked.
“At times, we are left wondering whether such orders are passed on some extraneous considerations or it is sheer ignorance of the law. Whatever it be, passing of such absurd and erroneous orders is something unpardonable,” the bench added in order accessed by OpIndia.
The Supreme Court questioned the competence of the High Court judge
Raising question on the competence of Justice Kumar to handle criminal matters, the Apex Court directed the judge to sit with a senior High Court judge in a division bench. "The Chief Justice of the High Court shall immediately withdraw the present criminal determination from the concerned Judge… make the concerned judge sit in a Division Bench with a seasoned senior judge of the High Court," the Supreme Court directed.
The Supreme Court was hearing an appeal against the judgment passed by a single bench of Justice Kumar, in which he allowed summons of criminal nature in a civil dispute. In his judgment, Justice Kumar refused to quash the summons issued by a magistrate against a company, which was accused of not paying the balance sum in a business transaction. Additionally, he allowed the initiation of criminal proceedings for the recovery of the balance amount, noting that the complainant would not be in a position to pursue civil litigation, as it would take a long time, and the complainant would have to spend money.
“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 on account of civil dispute between the parties, it would amount to travesty of justice and O.P. no. 2 (complainant) would suffer irreparable loss and he might even not be in a position to emerge from the financial constraints to pursue the matter,” Justice Kumar said in his judgment.
The Top Court expressed shock over the High Court order
Describing the High Court judgment as “shocking”, the Supreme Court said, “Is it 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 are shocking. It is an extremely sad day for one and all to read the observations in the impugned order. 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 could amount to abuse of process of law”.
“It was expected of the HC to understand the nature of the allegations levelled in the complaint. In substance, the High Court has said in so many words that the criminal proceedings instituted by the complainant in a case of pure civil dispute is justified because it may take considerable time for the complainant to recover the balance amount by preferring a civil suit,” the Supreme Court stated, setting aside the order of the High Court.