Allahabad HC Slams Bareilly Judge: Compromise Order Violated

• The Allahabad High Court severely criticized a Bareilly trial court judge for ignoring a verified compromise order and proceeding with a criminal trial.
• The judge was accused of "judicial indiscipline" and violating a High Court directive in a case involving IPC Sections 323 and 506.
• The High Court rejected the judge's explanation, noting the compromise was verified and suggesting the trial continued to facilitate lawyer fees.
• Despite the strong reprimand, Justice Raj Beer Singh declined further action against the judge due to an apology, issuing a warning instead.
• The ruling emphasizes the enforceability of compromise orders and judicial accountability in respecting higher court directives.

The High Court concluded that the judge had shown "no regard to the order of the high court" and had acted "in order to facilitate the fees of counsel for accused," deeming such conduct "unbecoming" of a judicial officer.

The Allahabad High Court recently delivered a sharp rebuke to a Bareilly trial court judge, citing "judicial indiscipline" for proceeding with a criminal trial despite a verified compromise between the parties. The High Court, in a ruling by Justice Raj Beer Singh, found that the judge had "blatantly" and "flagrantly" violated its prior directive by forcing the accused to obtain bail, framing charges, and conducting a full trial in a case involving IPC Sections 323 and 506, even after the settlement had been officially confirmed.

This severe criticism stemmed from the trial court's decision to continue proceedings in a 2024 case from Premnagar police station in Bareilly. The High Court specifically took exception to the Bareilly judge's explanation that the trial continued because the accused's lawyer desired to secure their fees. The High Court concluded that the judge had shown "no regard to the order of the high court" and had acted "in order to facilitate the fees of counsel for accused," deeming such conduct "unbecoming" of a judicial officer.

The underlying dispute involved Arshad and Dularey, who faced charges under IPC Sections 323 (voluntarily causing hurt) and 506 (criminal intimidation), which correspond to Section 115(2) and Section 351 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), respectively. These individuals, along with the opposite party, informed the High Court that the matter, described as a "minor incident," had been amicably resolved. They had sought the quashing of criminal proceedings by filing an application under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), which replaced the old Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC).

On August 8, 2025, the High Court acknowledged that both offenses were compoundable, meaning they could be settled out of court. It directed the parties to formally present their compromise to the trial court within two weeks, instructing the lower court to consider and decide upon it expeditiously and in accordance with the law. Furthermore, the High Court stipulated that no coercive action should be taken against the accused, provided the compromise application was filed within the specified timeframe. Despite these clear instructions, and the fact that the compromise was indeed filed and verified by the trial court itself on August 14, 2025, the Bareilly trial court proceeded to grant bail on August 28, frame charges on August 29, record prosecution witness statements on September 1, and record accused statements and hear arguments on September 8, ultimately delivering a judgment of acquittal for Arshad and Dularey on September 20.

The High Court observed that once the compromise had been verified, the case should have been concluded based on that settlement. Instead, the judicial officer "forced the accused persons to obtain bail, framed charges and put them on trial." When an explanation was sought, the Bareilly judge, then serving as ACJM/Additional Civil Judge (SD), Court No. 7, Bareilly, submitted on April 15, 2026, that the parties had not actively pursued the compromise.

Justice Singh, however, rejected this explanation, pointing to the August 14, 2025, order sheet which unequivocally recorded that the compromise had been filed and personally verified by the presiding officer. The High Court further dismissed the judge's assertion regarding the accused's counsel's desire for the trial to continue for fees, emphasizing the judge's disregard for the higher court's order. While condemning the judicial indiscipline, Justice Raj Beer Singh opted not to recommend further disciplinary action against the judge, noting that an apology had been tendered. The judge was, however, issued a stern warning to exercise greater caution in future proceedings.

This ruling underscores the critical importance of trial courts respecting and enforcing compromise orders, particularly when higher courts have issued specific directives. The Allahabad HC slams Bareilly judge compromise situation highlights a significant breach of judicial protocol and the potential for a Bareilly trial court violation of established legal procedures. The High Court's strong language regarding the judge's conduct and the alleged motive of facilitating lawyer fees serves as a stark reminder of judicial accountability.

While the judge ultimately received an acquittal for the accused and tendered an an apology, avoiding further disciplinary action, the case sets a precedent regarding the enforceability of compromise orders and the consequences of judicial disregard. The Justice Raj Beer Singh ruling reinforces that once a compromise is verified, the legal process should align with the settlement, preventing unnecessary continuation of trials and upholding the integrity of the judicial system. This incident emphasizes the need for vigilance in ensuring compromise orders are respected and challenging actions that prolong proceedings despite a verified settlement.

This ruling highlights the enforceability of compromise orders and the potential for judicial reprimand when trial courts disregard higher court directives on settlements. Lawyers should be vigilant in ensuring compromise orders are respected and be prepared to challenge judicial actions that force unnecessary trial proceedings despite a verified settlement.

Source: Original reporting via Live Law