The Allahabad High Court, presided over by Justice Raj Beer Singh, has issued a warning to a trial court judicial officer whose conduct was found to be “unbecoming of a judicial officer” after she forced the accused persons to obtain bail, framed charges, and proceeded with a full trial to facilitate advocate fees, despite having already verified an amicable settlement between the parties in compoundable offences. While considering a recall application filed under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), the High Court refused to recall its earlier order because the trial court had already concluded the proceedings by acquitting the accused, but strictly cautioned the judicial officer to be careful in the future.
Background of the Case
The applicants, Arshad and Dularey, had initially approached the High Court by filing an application under Section 528 BNSS (No. 27772 of 2025) seeking the quashing of the entire proceedings in Case No. 2202 of 2025 (State v. Arshad and others), arising out of Case Crime No. 190 of 2024 registered under Sections 323 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) at Police Station Premnagar, District Bareilly. The quashing was sought against the charge-sheet dated July 16, 2024, and the summoning order dated November 6, 2024, on the ground that the dispute arose from a minor incident and both parties had amicably settled the matter.
On August 8, 2025, the High Court disposed of the application, noting that the offences under Sections 323 and 506 IPC are compoundable and can be finally decided by the trial court itself. The Court directed that if both parties submitted a compromise application before the trial court within two weeks, it should be considered and decided expeditiously in accordance with law. The High Court further directed that no coercive action be taken against the applicants for two weeks and, if the application was filed within that timeframe, until the disposal of the compromise application.
Following subsequent developments in the trial court, the applicants filed Criminal Misc. Recall Application No. 02 of 2025, seeking a recall of the High Court’s order dated August 8, 2025.
Submissions and Trial Court Proceedings
During the hearing on the recall application, counsel for the applicants demonstrated that the then Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate / Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Court No. 7, Bareilly, failed to comply with the High Court’s directions.
The trial court record revealed that although the compromise application was filed by both parties and duly verified by the court on August 14, 2025, no order was passed on the compromise. Instead, the matter was scheduled for hearing. Thereafter:
- On August 28, 2025, the applicants were granted bail, and the case was fixed for framing of charges on August 29, 2025.
- On August 29, 2025, charges were framed against the accused.
- On September 1, 2025, the statements of Prosecution Witnesses (PW-1 and PW-2) were recorded.
- On September 8, 2025, statements of the accused under Section 313 were recorded, and final arguments were heard.
- On September 20, 2025, the trial court delivered a judgment acquitting the applicants.
When the High Court sought an explanation from the Presiding Officer regarding her actions, she submitted an explanation dated April 15, 2026. In her explanation, she stated that the parties did not press the compromise. She further stated that the counsel for the accused requested the court to decide the case after recording hostile statements of witnesses so that he could receive his fees, and the trial court proceeded to trial upon that request.
Appearing for the High Court on behalf of the then A.C.J.M./ Additional Civil Judge, Bareilly, Sri Sudhir Mehrotra submitted that the Presiding Officer tenders an apology and requested that, considering her long career ahead, her apology be accepted.
Court’s Analysis and Observations
Examining the trial court order-sheet, the High Court found that the Presiding Officer had made a false statement in her explanation claiming that the parties did not press the compromise. The Court noted that the order-sheet dated August 14, 2025, clearly proved that the compromise was submitted and verified. The Court reasoned that once the applicants had approached the High Court for quashing based on a compromise and subsequently filed it before the trial court, it was unacceptable to believe they would voluntarily choose to undergo trial.
The High Court held that the explanation tendered by the Presiding Officer revealed complete disregard for judicial orders, showing that the accused were subjected to trial merely to facilitate counsel’s fees:
“It is apparent that once the compromise was verified by the learned Presiding Officer on 14.08.2025, the case must have been decided on the basis of compromise but despite that she forced the accused persons to obtain bail, framed charges and put them on trial. Thus, it is apparent that the then A.C.J.M./ Additional Civil Judge (S.D.), Court No.7, Bareilly has disregarded and violated order of this Court in a flagrant and blatant manner and in utter disregard to the provisions of law.”
The Court further observed:
“In view of aforesaid, it is apparent that the order dated 08.08.2025, passed by this Court, was disregarded and violated by the then A.C.J.M./ Additional Civil Judge (S.D.), Court No.7, Bareilly in a blatant and flagrant manner and even after verification of the compromise, instead of passing an order on compromise, she proceeded to hold trial, framed charges against the accused persons and put them on trial in an illegal and arbitrary manner. The conduct of the said Presiding Officer is unbecoming of a judicial officer.”
Decision
Taking into consideration the apology tendered on behalf of the judicial officer, Justice Raj Beer Singh refrained from directing or recommending punitive measures, while issuing a formal caution:
“In view of aforesaid, no further action is taken or recommended against the then A.C.J.M./ Additional Civil Judge (S.D.), Court No.7, Bareilly, but she is warned to be careful in future.”
Turning to the substantive prayer for recalling the High Court’s earlier order dated August 8, 2025, the Court held that since the trial court had already concluded proceedings and decided the case by acquitting the applicants, the prayer for recall could not be granted. The recall application was disposed of accordingly.
Case Title: Arshad And Another Versus State of U.P. and Another
Case No.: APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. 27772 of 2025 (Criminal Misc. Recall Application No. 02 of 2025)
Bench: Justice Raj Beer Singh
Date: August 31, 2026
