Laughter is the only medicine: Supreme Court laughs off another civil dispute dressed as criminal case

The Supreme Court 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 that was given a criminal colour.

Justice JB Pardiwala, who was sharing the Bench with Justice R Mahadevan, 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.

Justice Pardiwala's reaction came against the backdrop of a recent controversy involving himself and Justice Prashant Kumar of the Allahabad High Court.

Earlier this month, he 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.

Justice Pardiwala later recalled those directions after a request from Chief Justice of India BR Gavai, while clarifying that he did not intend to embarrass the judge and acknowledging that roster allocation was the prerogative of the Chief Justice of the High Court.

Today, the Court was hearing an appeal by a 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. The complaint claimed ₹3.5 lakh had been paid but the balance ₹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 Bench recorded that even on a plain reading of the FIR, the only possible allegation was cheating. It added 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 ₹12.5 lakh balance could not be effected because the accused were protected from arrest. Justice Pardiwala laughed again while reading this portion aloud.

“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,” he noted in the order.

After dictating the order, the State counsel clarified that his only submission before the High Court had been that the appellants had absconded. Justice Pardiwala responded that absence could be due to fear, but that did not mean an offence was committed.

“Just because he had to pay some amount to that seller, will police come and pick us up? Why do you need the services of the police in this matter?”

At the end of the hearing, the judge lamented the misuse of the criminal process, saying,

“Had the High Court applied a little mind, we would not have been bothered by this unnecessary litigation. Party had to come to the Supreme Court, spend money for engaging a lawyer, we had to read the matter, we had to dictate the order and there could be multiple such orders. Should we not save this unnecessary litigation?”

In the earlier case, Justice Pardiwala had described the Allahabad High Court’s reasoning as “untenable” and reiterated that civil and criminal remedies could run in parallel only when the ingredients of a criminal offence were made out.

"The judge has gone to the extent of stating that asking the complainant to pursue civil remedy would be very unreasonable as civil suits take a long time, and therefore the complainant may be permitted to institute criminal proceedings for recovery...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 High Court. At times we are left wondering whether such orders are passed on some extraneous considerations or it is sheer ignorance of law," he had said in the order.

Today’s matter appeared to strike the same chord - but this time, the judge chose to laugh rather than lose his temper.