New Delhi, Aug. 6 -- The Supreme Court has directed that an Allahabad High Court judge be stripped of all criminal jurisdiction until his retirement and made to sit with a seasoned senior judge to understand the nuances of law, after finding his recent ruling to be one of the "worst and most erroneous" orders encountered by the top court. The unusual direction, issued by a bench of Justices JB Pardiwala and R Mahadevan, came in a criminal matter where the high court judge, Justice Prashant Kumar, dismissed a plea seeking quashing of a criminal case based on what the apex court termed as a purely civil dispute. "We are constrained to observe that the impugned order is one of the worst and most erroneous orders that we have come across in our respective tenures as judges of this Court... 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," said the bench in its order on Monday, expressing grave dismay over the judge's conduct. It wondered whether such orders are passed on some extraneous considerations or it is sheer ignorance of law. "Whatever it be, passing of such absurd and erroneous orders is something unpardonable," stated the bench. The top court went on to direct the chief justice of the Allahabad High Court to immediately withdraw the present "criminal determination" from the judge, and ensure he does not handle any criminal jurisdiction henceforth. "We 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," the bench ordered. Justice Kumar will retire in May 2029. It also urged the high court chief justice to assign the judge to sit on a division bench with a senior judge to guide him. "The Chief Justice shall make the concerned judge sit in a Division Bench with a seasoned senior judge of the High Court," stated the order. "We have been constrained to issue directions.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," noted the court, indicating a pattern of concern regarding the judge's decisions. The court's directions, notably removing a sitting High Court judge from an entire category of judicial work, are rare and underscore the gravity with which the bench viewed the matter. The judgment came in an appeal against an order passed by Justice Kumar in May 2025, rejecting a plea to quash criminal proceedings in a complaint case. The dispute arose after Lalita Textiles, a small business, filed a criminal complaint against another firm, alleging non-payment of Rs.7.23 lakh for supplied thread. Although a significant portion of the Rs.52.34 lakh invoice had been paid, a balance remained unpaid. Lalita Textiles first attempted to register a first information report, but the police declined, stating it was a civil matter. The complainant then filed a criminal complaint, invoking Section 406 IPC (criminal breach of trust), which led to issuance of summons by a magistrate. The other firm, M/s Shikhar Chemicals, sought quashing of the summons before the high court, arguing that the matter was a contractual dispute involving recovery of money, which was a civil issue at its core. However, Justice Kumar refused to quash the proceedings, reasoning that since the complainant was a small business and lacked the resources to fight a long-drawn civil case, it should be allowed to pursue the criminal case to recover his dues. "To be more precise, it would seem like good money chasing bad money," he observed in the impugned order. The apex court took deep exception to these observations. "Is it the understanding of the High Court that ultimately if the accused is convicted, the trial court would award him the balance amount? The observations recorded are shocking," the bench held. Citing the impugned order, the bench added: "It was expected of the High Court to know the well-settled position of law that in cases of civil dispute a complainant cannot be permitted to resort to criminal proceedings as the same would amount to abuse of process of law." The bench highlighted that even the magistrate had failed to understand the fundamental legal distinction between a sale transaction and entrustment of goods, and thereby misapplied Section 406 of IPC. "We are not taken by surprise with the magistrate exhibiting complete ignorance of law as regards the position of law.However, we expected at least the High Court to understand the fine distinction between the two offences and the necessary ingredients to constitute the offence of cheating and criminal breach of trust," it said. The order added: "The Judge has gone to the extent of saying that asking the complainant to pursue civil remedy for the purpose of recovery of the balance amount will be very unreasonable as civil suit may take a long time before it is decided and, therefore, the complainant should be permitted to institute criminal proceedings for the purpose of recovery of the balance amount." Calling it an "extremely sad day" for the judiciary, the Supreme Court exercised its extraordinary powers to set aside the high court's order without even issuing notice to the other side....