'Totally Uncalled For': Allahabad High Court Deprecates Practice Of Trial Judges Citing Names Of Supreme Court Judges In Orders

The Court termed the system as "totally uncalled for" and one which could not be appreciated. It reminded judicial officers that only the citation, case number and the relevant text should be quoted in their orders.

"It is reminded that while citing the judgments their citation and/or case number and party name and/or the date of decision along with the text which is relied upon is only to be quoted and mentioned in the judgment whereas on the said page the revisional court has mentioned the names of the Hon'ble Judges constituting the Bench", a bench of Justice Samit Gopal stated in its order.

The Court thus dismissed a petition filed under Article 227 by one Priyank Kumar, who sought to initiate criminal proceedings against his relatives for allegedly cheating him of money under the pretext of securing a government job.

While perusing the records of the case, the High Court noted that while considering a judgment of the Apex Court, the Additional Sessions Judge in Meerut (Revisional Court) had, in his order, mentioned the names of the Judges of the Supreme Court who had decided the matter (which was being referred to)

Justice Gopal expressed strong disapproval of this and said that this system "cannot be appreciated".

It may be noted that the HC had encountered a similar instance in January 2025, when directions were issued cautioning trial judges against mentioning the names of Supreme Court judges in their orders.

The bench noted that in compliance with that order, the Registrar General had issued instructions to all the District and Sessions Judges/OSD, all Principal Judges, Family Courts and all the Presiding Officers of Commercial Court, MACTs and LARRs.

However, the single judge remarked that the concerned Presiding Officer was "quite oblivious" to previous directions issued by the HC.

"The said Presiding Officer is hereby reminded of it and is called upon to look into the same and see that this error does not get repeated in future by him," the Court further stated as it ordered the Registrar (Compliance) to communicate the order to the concerned officer for "being cautious in future".

About the case

The petitioner (Priyank Kumar) had challenged the orders of the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate and the Additional Sessions Judge, Meerut, which had dismissed his complaint under Section 203 CrPC.

The petitioner alleged that the accused, who were his relatives, had taken money from him to secure a clerkship for his brother at a Medical College.

The complainant alleged that he transferred Rs. 50,000 to a doctor's bank account and later paid Rs. 4 lakhs in cash. When the employment was not provided and the money was not returned, he moved an application under Section 156(3) CrPC.

Dismissing the petition, the High Court held that the transaction described by the petitioner essentially amounted to an illegal agreement.

"It is evident that the allegations in the present matter are of giving money to the accused by the complainant, the same is illegal, the said agreement is against public policy," the Court held.

Thus, the bench upheld the revisional court's order.

In its order, the Court also took exception to the administrative lapses within its own Registry. The bench noted that documents with handwritten notes had been filed with the petition, yet the Stamp Reporter failed to object.

To this, the Review Officer tendered an unconditional apology; however, refusing to accept the apology as a mere formality, the Court remarked,

"Neat and clean copies of documents are expected to be placed before the Courts. The mere response...does not suffice".

The single judge directed the Registrar (Criminal) to issue a warning to the officer to work diligently in the future. The matter is listed for further orders in Chambers on February 18.