Allahabad High Court: ACJM Censured in Arshad And Another v State of UP and Another

• The Allahabad High Court censured an Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate (ACJM) for ignoring a verified compromise in a physical assault case.
• The ACJM proceeded to trial despite a High Court directive to decide on the compromise application.
• Her decision was reportedly influenced by the accused's lawyer, who stated he would only earn fees if the case went to trial.
• Justice Raj Beer Singh found the ACJM made a false statement and acted in blatant disregard of the High Court's order and legal provisions.
• The High Court concluded the ACJM facilitated lawyer fees by putting the accused on trial without addressing the duly verified settlement.

The Court unequivocally stated that the presiding officer showed "no regard to the order of this Court" and, in an effort to "facilitate the fees of counsel for accused," proceeded to put the applicants/accused on trial without issuing any order on the duly verified compromise.

The Allahabad High Court has issued a strong censure against an Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate (ACJM) for her actions in a case involving physical assault and criminal intimidation, specifically Arshad And Another v State of UP and Another. The censure arose from the ACJM's decision to proceed with a full trial despite a verified compromise having been reached between the accused and the victims. This judicial disregard for a compromise application directly contravened an earlier directive from the High Court.

On August 8, 2025, the High Court had explicitly instructed the ACJM, who also serves as an Additional Civil Judge, to render a decision on the compromise application. However, instead of adhering to this clear order, the ACJM opted to conduct a trial. This decision was reportedly influenced by a statement from the accused's lawyer, who indicated that he would only receive his fees if the case proceeded to trial. Ultimately, the trial concluded with the acquittal of the accused individuals.

In a ruling delivered on August 31, Justice Raj Beer Singh of the Allahabad High Court sharply criticized the trial judge's conduct. The High Court found that the ACJM had not only disregarded but also flagrantly and blatantly violated its previous order, demonstrating an utter disregard for established legal provisions. This ruling highlights a serious instance of judicial misconduct in India concerning settlement procedures.

Further compounding the issue, the High Court noted that the ACJM had provided a false statement in her explanation, claiming that the parties involved had not pressed for the compromise. However, the High Court's investigation revealed that a trial court order itself clearly documented that the compromise had been filed and subsequently verified by the presiding officer. The Court unequivocally stated that the presiding officer showed "no regard to the order of this Court" and, in an effort to "facilitate the fees of counsel for accused," proceeded to put the applicants/accused on trial without issuing any order on the duly verified compromise. This finding underscores a significant breach of Uttar Pradesh judicial ethics.

This censure by the Allahabad High Court serves as a critical reminder of the judiciary's accountability and the imperative for judges to adhere strictly to legal directives and procedural norms. The ruling by Justice Raj Beer Singh sets a precedent for challenging judicial decisions that disregard valid compromise applications, particularly when there is an appearance of impropriety related to legal fees. It reinforces the High Court's commitment to upholding the integrity of the judicial process and ensuring that justice is not swayed by extraneous considerations.

The case of Arshad And Another v State of UP and Another underscores the importance of judicial officers acting impartially and in accordance with the law, rather than being influenced by the financial interests of legal counsel. Lawyers should note this ruling as a precedent for challenging judicial decisions that disregard valid compromise applications, particularly when there's an appearance of impropriety regarding legal fees. It reinforces the High Court's stance on judicial accountability and adherence to settlement procedures, providing a basis to appeal or seek intervention against such actions. This judicial censure against the ACJM sends a clear message regarding the expected standards of conduct within the Uttar Pradesh judiciary.

Lawyers should note this ruling as a precedent for challenging judicial decisions that disregard valid compromise applications, particularly when there's an appearance of impropriety regarding legal fees. It reinforces the High Court's stance on judicial accountability and adherence to settlement procedures, providing a basis to appeal or seek intervention against such actions.

Source: Original reporting via legal news coverage.