M/S SHIKHAR CHEMICALSversusTHE STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH & ANR.

          [2025] 9 S.C.R. 108 : 2025 INSC 945

                M/s Shikhar Chemicals
                           v.
           The State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr.
   (Special Leave Petition (Criminal) No. 11445 of 2025)
                         08 August 2025
        [J.B. Pardiwala and R. Mahadevan, JJ.]


                     Issue for Consideration
Reconsideration of the directions issued in the order dated
04.08.2025 in view of the request made by the Chief Justice of India.

                            Headnotes†
Directions by Supreme Court – Recall /deletion of – Vide order
dated 04.08.2025, this Court set aside the impugned judgment
of the High Court of Allahabad wherein the concerned Judge
had declined to quash the criminal complaint despite the
matter being a purely civil dispute of recovery of money and
held that the remedy of the civil suit for the said purpose was
unreasonable – Matter was remanded back to High Court and
directions were issued requesting the Chief Justice of the
High Court to withdraw the criminal roster from the concerned
Judge till his retirement and make him sit in a Division Bench
with a senior judge – Letter from the Chief Justice of India
requesting to reconsider the aforesaid directions:
Held: Intention was not to cause embarrassment or cast aspersions
on the concerned Judge – Directions were issued keeping in mind
that the impugned order was not the only erroneous and perverse
order of the concerned Judge that was looked into for the first time
rather, many such erroneous orders had come up over a period
of time – It was not just a matter of error or mistake committed
by the Judge concerned in appreciating the legal points or facts
however, this Court was concerned about the appropriate direction
to be issued in the interest of justice and to protect the honour and
dignity of the institution – However, in due deference to the written
request made by the Chief Justice of India, directions in paras 25
and 26 deleted from order dated 04.08.2025. [Paras 4, 6, 7]
Justice delivery system – Judiciary – Honour and dignity
of – Protection of – Duty of Courts/Judges. [Paras 6, 11, 12]
[2025] 9 S.C.R.                                                              109

      M/s Shikhar Chemicals v. The State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr.


                               Case Law Cited
     Rikhab Birani & Anr. v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr., 2025 INSC
     512 – referred to.

                                 List of Acts
     Constitution of India.

                              List of Keywords
     Reconsideration of the directions; Request made by Hon’ble the
     Chief Justice of India; Letter from the Chief Justice of India; Recall
     of directions; Directions deleted; Directions recalled; Request to
     the Chief Justice of the High Court; Withdrawal of criminal roster
     from the concerned Judge; Concerned Judge; Request to make the
     concerned Judge sit with a senior Judge; Constitutional responsibility
     of Supreme Court; Appellate jurisdiction under Article 136 of the
     Constitution of India; Honour and dignity of judiciary; Perverse
     and unjust orders from High Court; Administrative power of the
     Chief Justice of the High Court; Master of the roster; Institutional
     concerns; Rule of law; Justice delivery system.

                              Case Arising From
     EXTRAORDINARY APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Special Leave
     Petition (Criminal) No. 11445 of 2025
     From the Judgment and Order dated 05.05.2025 of the High Court
     of Judicature at Allahabad in A482 No. 2507 of 2024

                         Appearances for Parties

     Advs. for the Petitioner:
     Surjadipta Seth, Arindam Ghosh.

                Judgment / Order of the Supreme Court

                                    Order

1.   We have received an undated letter from Hon’ble the Chief Justice
     of India requesting us to reconsider the directions issued by us in
     Paras 25 and 26 respectively of our order dated 04th August, 2025
     passed in Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No. 11445 of 2025.
110                                                            [2025] 9 S.C.R.

                           Supreme Court Reports


2.     In such circumstances, referred to above, we directed the Registry to
       re-notify the main matter for the purpose of considering the request
       made by Hon’ble the Chief Justice of India. Accordingly, the matter
       has been re-notified today.
3.     By our order dated 4th August, 2025, we set aside the impugned
       judgment of the High Court of Allahabad and remanded the matter
       to the High Court for fresh consideration in accordance with law.
       While partly allowing SLP (Crl.) No. 11445 of 2025, we observed
       the following:-
            “22. In the result, we partly allow this petition and set aside
            the impugned order passed by the High Court. We remand
            the matter to the High Court for fresh consideration of
            the Criminal Miscellaneous Application No.2507 of 2024.
            The quashing petition shall be reheard on its own merits
            keeping in mind the dictum laid in the two decisions of
            this Court referred to above.
            23. We request the Hon’ble the Chief Justice of the High
            Court of Allahabad to assign this matter to any other Judge
            of the High Court as he may deem fit.
            24. The Chief Justice of High Court shall immediately
            withdraw the present criminal determination from the
            concerned Judge.
            25. The Chief Justice shall make the concerned judge sit
            in a Division Bench with a seasoned senior judge of the
            High Court.
            26. We further direct that the concerned judge shall not
            be assigned any criminal determination, till he demits
            office. If at all at some point of time, he is to be made to
            sit as a single judge, he shall not be assigned any criminal
            determination.
            27. We have been constrained to issue directions as
            contained in Paras 22, 23, 24, 25 and 26 respectively,
            referred to above, keeping in mind that the impugned
            order is not the only erroneous order of the concerned
            Judge that we have looked into for the first time. Many
            such erroneous orders have been looked into by us over
            a period of time.”
[2025] 9 S.C.R.                                                         111

      M/s Shikhar Chemicals v. The State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr.


4.   At the outset, we must clarify that our intention was not to cause
     embarrassment or cast aspersions on the concerned Judge. We
     would not even think of doing so. However, when matters cross the
     threshold and the dignity of the institution is imperiled, it becomes
     the constitutional responsibility of this Court to intervene, even
     when acting under its appellate jurisdiction under Article 136 of the
     Constitution. The directions in paras 25 and 26 respectively were
     issued keeping in mind the observation in Para 27. At the cost of
     repetition, we reproduce para 27 as under:-
           “27. We have been constrained to issue directions as
           contained in Paras 22, 23, 24, 25 and 26 respectively,
           referred to above, keeping in mind that the impugned
           order is not the only erroneous order of the concerned
           Judge that we have looked into for the first time. Many
           such erroneous orders have been looked into by us over
           a period of time.”
5.   Similarly, whenever we come across legally unimpeachable orders
     and orders that have ensured complete justice to the litigants, we
     have always taken the opportunity to record our appreciation for the
     Judges of the High Courts. The High Courts are not separate islands
     that can be disassociated from this Institution and we reiterate that
     whatever was said in our order was to ensure that the dignity and
     authority of the judiciary as a whole is maintained high in the minds
     of the people of this country, as that will go a long way in reinforcing
     the faith that is reposed in us.
6.   It is not just a matter of error or mistake committed by the Judge
     concerned in appreciating the legal points or facts. We were concerned
     about the appropriate direction to be issued in the interest of justice
     and with a view to protecting the honour and dignity of the institution.
     The litigants in this country approach different courts of law to seek
     justice. For 90% of the litigants in this country, the High Court is the
     final court of justice. Only the remaining 10% can afford to approach
     the Supreme Court. The litigants who come to court expect the
     justice delivery system to function in accordance with law, not to
     obtain absurd or irrational orders.
7.   In any view of the matter, since a request has been made in writing
     by Hon’ble the Chief Justice of India, and in due deference to the
     same, we hereby delete paras 25 and 26 respectively from our order
     dated 4th August, 2025. The order be corrected accordingly.
112                                                             [2025] 9 S.C.R.

                              Supreme Court Reports


8.     While we are deleting paras 25 and 26 respectively from our order
       dated 04th August, 2025, we leave it to the Chief Justice of the
       Allahabad High Court to look into the matter.
9.     We fully acknowledge that the Chief Justice of a High Court is the
       master of the roster. But, as observed above, our directions are
       absolutely not interfering with the administrative power of the Chief
       Justice of the High Court. When matters raise institutional concerns
       affecting the rule of law, this Court may be compelled to step in and
       take corrective steps.
10. Recently, a Bench comprising former Chief Justice of India Hon’ble
    Mr. Justice Sanjiv Khanna and Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sanjay Kumar
    observed in Rikhab Birani & Anr. vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr.
    reported in 2025 INSC 512, as follows :-
               “We are also constrained to impose costs of Rs. 50,000/-
               (Rupees Fifty Thousand Only) on the State of Uttar Pradesh
               as in spite of repeated judgments/orders of this Court,
               we are being flooded with cases of civil wrongs being
               made the subject matter of criminal proceedings by filing
               chargesheets, etc.”
11. We hope that in future, we may not have to come across such
    perverse and unjust orders from any High Court. The endeavour
    of the High Courts should always be to uphold the rule of law and
    maintain institutional credibility. If the Rule of Law is not maintained
    or protected within the court itself, then that would be the end of the
    entire justice delivery system in the country.
12. Judges at any level are expected to work efficiently, discharge their
    duties diligently and always strive hard to fulfill their constitutional oath.
13. With the aforesaid, we dispose of the Special Leave Petition.
14. The Registry is directed to forward one copy of this order at the
    earliest to Hon’ble the Chief Justice of the Allahabad High Court.

       Result of the case: Special Leave Petition disposed of.



       †
           Headnotes prepared by: Divya Pandey