LegalAware
LegalAware.ai
EMPOWERING LEGAL AWARENESS

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

Special Leave Petition (Civil) · 2025 INSC 945Decided 8 Aug 2025
Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No. 11445 of 2025
Justice J.B. Pardiwala · Justice R. Mahadevan

Background

In an earlier order dated 4 August 2025 in the same SLP, this Bench had set aside a High Court of Allahabad order and remanded a quashing petition for fresh consideration, but had also directed (in paragraphs 25 and 26 of that order) that the particular Allahabad High Court judge who passed the impugned order be barred from handling any criminal matters going forward, citing a pattern of erroneous orders from that judge. The Chief Justice of India then sent an undated letter to the Bench requesting reconsideration of those specific directions, and the matter was re-notified for that purpose.

Decision Breakdown

In deference to the Chief Justice of India's written request, the Bench deleted paragraphs 25 and 26 of its earlier order (which had barred the judge from criminal work), while leaving it to the Chief Justice of the Allahabad High Court to take whatever administrative action he deemed fit, expressly acknowledging that the Chief Justice of a High Court is "the master of the roster." The Bench clarified it never intended to embarrass or cast aspersions on the judge personally, but explained that when erroneous orders threaten public confidence in the justice system, especially since the High Court is the final court of justice for roughly 90% of litigants who cannot afford to approach the Supreme Court, the Court is sometimes compelled to intervene under Article 136 to protect the institution's dignity. The rest of the original order (setting aside the High Court's judgment and remanding the quashing petition for fresh hearing before a different judge) was left undisturbed, and the Court directed a copy be sent to the Allahabad High Court's Chief Justice.

Lesson Learnt

Even the Supreme Court can revisit and correct its own directions, including sensitive ones concerning a fellow judge's assignments, when institutional propriety calls for it, illustrating that judicial administration issues (like which judge hears which cases) are ultimately left to the concerned High Court's Chief Justice rather than imposed top-down by the Supreme Court.

Official source (sci.gov.in)View Judgment (PDF)

More rulings in Criminal Law

Criminal LawSupreme Court of India

Charming Rupon v. State of Meghalaya

The Supreme Court acquitted the accused, finding the prosecution's case riddled with serious doubt. Both the victim and her cousin (a key witness) admitted in cross-examination that they could not identify the accused and that his name had been supplied to them by the victim's mother, raising a strong suspicion of tutoring, especially since the victim admitted she had been coached by the public prosecutor before testifying. The mother's own conduct (not reacting urgently despite being told of the assault, and material facts missing from the belated FIR) was found "unnatural." A crucial witness, the school teacher whose disclosure triggered the FIR, was never examined, without explanation, warranting an adverse inference against the prosecution. The Court also noted that two medical witnesses were never meaningfully cross-examined because the defence counsel was absent on the relevant dates, and that the trial court had wrongly brushed aside credible alibi evidence led by the accused.

Decided 9 Oct 2026Read case
Criminal LawSupreme Court of India

Ramkrushna Prahllad Dongardive v. The State of Maharashtra

The Supreme Court restored the trial court's acquittal. It found that the prosecution never produced the original cashbooks, daily registers, or audit reports that would have actually proven the appellant was entrusted with and misappropriated the money: the investigating officer himself admitted these documents were never shown to him despite being asked for. The department also failed to produce records the appellant had specifically sought in his own defence. Separately, the search and seizure of documents from the appellant's house was legally doubtful, since both independent witnesses to the seizure turned hostile and denied knowing its contents, and the mandatory procedural safeguards for such a seizure were not followed. The Court also flagged that the High Court convicted the appellant for the very first time on appeal without ever hearing him on the question of sentence, which the law required it to do.

Decided 8 Oct 2026Read case
Criminal LawDelhi High Court

Gurpreet Singh vs. State (NCT of Delhi)

The Court accepted that the order recalling the proclaimed offender status be placed on record. Noting that the complainant was untraceable and the prosecution itself raised no serious objection to anticipatory bail, the Court found no reason to deny the applicant liberty. It granted anticipatory bail, directing release on a personal bond of Rs. 20,000 with one surety in the event of arrest.

Decided 7 Oct 2026Read case
Criminal LawDelhi High Court

Mukesh Rani vs. Narcotics Control Bureau

The Court noted the investigation was complete, the chargesheet was filed, the co-accused had already been granted bail, and the combined quantity recovered (1.976 kg) still fell short of the "commercial quantity" threshold under the NDPS Act. With ten witnesses yet to be examined and no indication the trial would conclude quickly, the Court found continued detention unnecessary and granted regular bail on a personal bond of Rs. 50,000 with standard conditions.

Decided 7 Oct 2026Read case
Criminal LawDelhi High Court

Aakash vs. State Govt. of NCT of Delhi and Anr.

The Court noted that all prosecution witnesses, including the complainant and the guest house manager, had already been examined, and that a co-accused in the same FIR had already been granted bail. Given the complainant's own testimony about voluntary association with the petitioner and the completed trial evidence, the Court found the overall facts favoured bail. It granted regular bail on a personal bond of Rs. 50,000 with standard conditions (reporting to police weekly, not influencing witnesses, providing address/mobile details).

Decided 7 Oct 2026Read case
Criminal LawDelhi High Court

Kundan Kumar vs. State NCT of Delhi & Anr.

The Court relied on earlier Delhi High Court rulings holding that whether a broken promise of marriage was "false" from the outset (criminal) or a mere "breach" (not criminal) is a question for trial, not something requiring custodial interrogation. Noting the investigation was complete and the applicant had no prior criminal record, the Court granted regular bail on a personal bond of Rs. 25,000 with conditions, clarifying the order was not an opinion on the merits.

Decided 7 Oct 2026Read case