- Supreme Court set aside Rajasthan High Court order denying anticipatory bail to a couple in a civil dispute
- The case involved an alleged unpaid balance of Rs 12.5 lakh for a plywood consignment
- Supreme Court criticised the High Court for treating a civil dispute as a criminal case
Days after controversy over Allahabad High Court judge's faulty order, the Supreme Court bench of Justices JB Pardiwallah and R Mahadevan on Wednesday set aside a Rajasthan High Court order denying anticipatory bail to a couple in a case which was found to be a civil dispute but was given a criminal colour.
Justice JB Pardiwallah remarked that he was "controlling like anything" and would laugh it off this time.
"We are not going to lose our cool today. Today, we are controlling like anything. The medicine is to laugh," he said, before bursting into laughter on reading the case file with the same mistake that had triggered him to bar a high court judge from hearing criminal cases till he retires.
The Supreme Court last week slammed Justice Prashant Kumar of the Allahabad High Court for his remarks made in a judgment suggesting that criminal prosecution may be permitted to recover money as an alternative remedy in a civil suit. The same bench of Justice JB Pardiwallah had ordered the removal of criminal cases from Justice Kumar's roster after finding that he had allowed criminal prosecution to continue in a purely civil dispute.
This move had sparked controversy as 13 judges from the Allahabad High Court then wrote to Chief Justice of India BR Gavai, saying that a Chief Justice of a high court is the master of the roster in the high court and Justice Pardiwallah's order was a judicial overreach.
CJI Gavai then sent the case back to Justice Pardiwallah's bench of reconsideration.
On August 4, the bench of Justice Pardiwallah rolled back the directive that had barred the Allahabad high court judge from hearing any criminal cases for the remainder of his tenure and ordered him to sit with a senior colleague to "learn the nuances of law."
The controversy had barely subsided when another such case, this time from the Rajasthan High Court, came in front of the same bench.
The top court was hearing an appeal by a couple against the Rajasthan High Court's refusal to grant them anticipatory bail in a case arising from an alleged unpaid amount for a plywood consignment. The complaint claimed Rs 3.5 lakh had been paid, but the balance of Rs 12.5 lakh remained unpaid. A first information report (FIR) was registered against the couple under Sections 420 (cheating), 406 (criminal breach of trust), and 120B (criminal conspiracy) of the Indian Penal Code.
The top court noted that even on a plain reading of the case, the only possible allegation was cheating. It was observed that the offence of criminal breach of trust could not arise once there was a sale transaction.
"It is but obvious that the only submission before the High Court could be that it is a case of civil dispute. There is no question of criminal breach of trust once there is a sale transaction. This is a settled position of law," the court said.
The judges expressed disappointment with the reasoning in the High Court order, particularly the part that recorded the submission of the public prosecutor that recovery of the Rs 12.5 lakh balance could not be effected because the accused were protected from arrest.
Justice Pardiwallah laughed again and said, "What we have understood is that according to the State, police machinery is required for the purpose of recovery of the balance amount. We need not say anything further in the matter. Ordinarily, we do not set aside orders of the High Court denying bail. But this is an order we deem fit to set aside."
