Legal Dispute Dismissed with Humor: Supreme Court Laughs off Another Civil Matter Mislabeled as Criminal Prosecution
In a recent development, the Supreme Court of India has set aside a Rajasthan High Court order denying anticipatory bail to a couple, citing the misuse of the criminal process. This decision comes against the backdrop of a controversy involving Justice JB Pardiwala, a judge of the Supreme Court, and his stance on the overlap between civil and criminal cases.
The case in question involved an appeal by the couple against the High Court's refusal to grant them anticipatory bail in a case arising from an alleged unpaid amount for a plywood consignment. According to the complaint, ₹3.5 lakh had been paid, but the balance ₹12.5 lakh remained unpaid. An FIR was registered against the couple under Sections 420 (cheating), 406 (criminal breach of trust), and 120B (criminal conspiracy) of the Indian Penal Code.
However, the Supreme Court, in its observation, noted that even on a plain reading of the FIR, the only possible allegation was cheating, and the offence of criminal breach of trust could not arise once there was a sale transaction. Justice Pardiwala, who heard the case along with Justice R Mahadevan, expressed his disappointment with the reasoning in the High Court order, particularly the part that recorded the submission of the public prosecutor that recovery of the balance amount could not be effected because the accused were protected from arrest.
This decision by the Supreme Court is significant as it reiterates Justice Pardiwala's stance on the separation of civil and criminal cases. He had earlier described a similar Allahabad High Court reasoning as "untenable" and emphasised that civil and criminal remedies could run in parallel only when the ingredients of a criminal offence were made out.
Justice Pardiwala's recent controversies centre around his handling of the overlap between civil and criminal cases, especially the potential misuse of criminal proceedings where civil remedies exist. This has led to internal tensions within the judiciary over judicial accountability and respect among judges.
Justice Pardiwala, known for his large volume of judgments across criminal, civil, and taxation law, is expected to become the Chief Justice of India in 2028. His active involvement in public interest matters such as stray dog control in Delhi and high-stakes cases like online gaming taxation reflects his careful yet sometimes contentious judicial approach.
In today's matter, Justice Pardiwala chose to laugh rather than lose his temper, which appeared to strike the same chord as the earlier case involving Justice Prashant Kumar of the Allahabad High Court. Despite the controversy, Justice Pardiwala affirmed the judiciary's dignity as the motivating factor behind his decisions, and accepted the Chief Justice's request to delete certain problematic paragraphs from his order.
This decision by the Supreme Court serves as a reminder of the importance of separating civil and criminal cases and the potential misuse of the criminal process. It also underscores Justice Pardiwala's commitment to upholding the principles of justice and fairness in the Indian judiciary.
Read also:
- Today's most impactful photographic moments
- Support for Eric Adams in The Post's Letters to the Editor on August 13, 2025
- Roosting Shark and Rambunctious Red Squirrels: Unconventional House Rental in Yorkshire Involving Aquatic Marvel, Squirrely Mayhem, and Mystical Planning Regulations
- Urban Tales: Winged Hedgehogs and Gridiron Mascots Highlight Our Legendary Series on TGC+!
