The Allahabad High Court has censured an Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate (ACJM) for disregarding compromise between accused and victims in a case of physical assault and criminal intimidation [Arshad And Another v State of UP and Another].Justice Raj Beer Singh noted that the High Court on August 8, 2025, had directed ACJM/ Additional Civil Judge to take a decision on the compromise application but instead she chose to conduct trial.This was after the lawyer for the accused told her that he will get his fees if the matter goes to trial.The accused were ultimately acquitted in the trial. In the judgment passed on August 31, the High Court said that the trial judge had disregarded and violated the High Court order in a flagrant and blatant manner and in utter disregard to the provisions of law. It noted that the judge made a false statement in her explanation that the parties had not pressed for compromise. The Court found that a trial court order itself revealed that the compromise was filed and verified by the presiding officer. “This statement of the Presiding Officer again shows that she has no regard to the order of this Court and in order to facilitate the fees of counsel for accused, she put the applicants/ accused on trial, without passing any order on the compromise, which was duly verified,” the Court said..It also observed that when parties themselves had approached the High Court for quashing the proceedings on the basis of compromise, it cannot be accepted that they would not press the compromise and would choose to face the trial. “In the said explanation, the presiding officer has also mentioned that the counsel for accused has stated that he will get his fees and the case be decided after recording hostile statements of the witnesses and upon that request the trial Court proceeded for trial,” it noted.The Court made the observations while dealing with an application moved by an accused for recall of the order passed by the High Court on August 8, 2025, for quashing the proceedings on the basis of compromise..Having been informed that the trial judge had instead framed charges and decided the case on merits, the High Court said that her conduct was unbecoming of a judicial officer as she had put the accused on trial in an illegal and arbitrary manner.The counsel representing the High Court said that she has tendered an apology for her conduct. He added that she has a long career and her apology may be accepted.In view of the same, the Court said no further action was required to be taken against the judge. However, the Court warned her to be careful in the future.“So far question of recall of order dated 08.08.2025 is concerned, as the case has already been decided by the trial Court, thus the prayer to recall the order dated 08.08.2025 is refused,” the Bench ruled..Advocate Abdul Majid represented the applicants.Advocate Sudhir Mehrotra represented the High Court..[Read Judgment]
