'Not going to lose our cool': SC becomes 'controlling like anything' on Rajasthan HC's faulty order

New Delhi: The Supreme Court bench of Justices JB Pardiwallah and R Mahadevan on Wednesday set aside an order of the Rajasthan High Court. In the order, the HC denied anticipatory bail to a couple in a case that was initially given a criminal label but has been found to be a civil dispute.

This comes days after the SC set aside a faulty order of the Allahabad High Court judge. While hearing the case, Justice JB Pardiwallah said that he would laugh off the mistake of the Rajasthan HC judge and commented he was "controlling like anything".

Also Read

Why not let the dogs out? Celebrities react to Supreme Court’s order on sheltering stray dogs

Supreme Court stays action on 10+ year diesel, 15+ year petrol vehicles in Delhi

Delhi stray dogs row: Three-judge Supreme Court bench to take up case today

He said, "We are not going to lose our cool today. Today, we are controlling like anything. The medicine is to laugh," before he laughed while reading the case file. Notably, the same mistake led him to bar a high court judge from hearing criminal cases till his retirement.

Last week, the Supreme Court slammed the Allahabad High Court's Justice Prashant Kumar. While delivering a judgment, he said that instead of a civil suit, one can resort to criminal prosecution to recover money. Justice JB Pardiwallah's bench ordered the removal of criminal cases from Justice Kumar's roster due to this.

As a result, controversy erupted as the Allahabad High Court's 13 judges wrote to Chief Justice of India BR Gavai, calling Justice Pardiwallah's order a judicial overreach. CJI Gavai sent the case back to the bench of Justice Pardiwallah, who rolled back the order on August 4, but ordered the judge to sit with a senior colleague to "learn the nuances of law."

A couple appealed to the Supreme Court against the Rajasthan HC's refusal to grant them anticipatory bail in a case where money for a plywood consignment is allegedly unpaid, with the pending amount being Rs 12.5 lakh. An FIR and a criminal case were filed against the couple. The SC said that the only possible allegation was cheating, and there was no offence of criminal breach of trust.

The court said, "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 judges said they were disappointed with the HC order, and Justice Pardiwallah 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."