The Allahabad High Court has issued a reprimand to an Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate (ACJM) for proceeding with a trial despite an existing settlement between the involved parties. This incident arose in the context of a case concerning physical assault and criminal intimidation, titled Arshad And Another v State of UP and Another. Justice Raj Beer Singh highlighted the disregard shown by the ACJM towards a prior directive from the High Court.
High Court’s Directive Overlooked
On August 8, 2025, the High Court had instructed the ACJM, who also held the position of Additional Civil Judge, to make a determination on the parties’ compromise application. Contrary to this order, the magistrate chose to conduct a trial. This decision came after the defense lawyer indicated that his fees would be contingent upon the case proceeding to trial. Ultimately, the accused were acquitted.
Violation of Judicial Instructions
In a judgment delivered on August 31, Justice Singh criticized the trial judge for flagrantly violating the High Court’s order. The judgment pointed out that the judge falsely claimed the parties had not pursued a compromise. However, the trial court’s own records demonstrated that a compromise had been filed and acknowledged by the presiding officer.
Improper Conduct for Financial Gain
Justice Singh remarked, “The Presiding Officer’s statement indicates a blatant disregard for the High Court’s order, seemingly to facilitate counsel’s fees, leading to an unwarranted trial without addressing the verified compromise.” The court observed it was improbable that the parties, who sought the High Court’s intervention for quashing the proceedings based on their settlement, would opt for a trial instead.
The presiding officer allegedly proceeded with the trial after the defense counsel suggested a resolution post-hostile witness statements, further indicating the trial court’s questionable actions.
More Read
Judicial Accountability and Apology
The High Court addressed an application filed by an accused seeking to recall the August 8, 2025 order. The application was based on the trial judge’s decision to frame charges and adjudicate the case on its merits. Justice Singh described the judge’s conduct as “unbecoming of a judicial officer,” noting the illegal and arbitrary nature of her actions.
Although the judge extended an apology, acknowledging her misconduct, the High Court, through its counsel, indicated her remorse and longstanding career warranted leniency. Consequently, no further action was deemed necessary, though the judge was cautioned to avoid similar lapses in the future.
The High Court clarified that the request to recall the August 8, 2025 order was denied since the trial had concluded. Advocate Abdul Majid represented the applicants, while Advocate Sudhir Mehrotra appeared for the High Court.
