In a recall application filed before the Allahabad High Court seeking recall of an order dated 08-08-2025 by this Court, a Single Judge Bench of Justice Raj Beer Singh warned the A.C.J.M. for disregarding this Court’s earlier order and disposed of the recall application.
Upon perusal, the Court found that the applicants had filed an application under Section 528 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS) for quashing proceedings on grounds of compromise between the parties, which was disposed of by the impugned order dated 08-08-2025. It was found to be clear that since the offences were compoundable, it was directed that if both parties filed an application before the Court within two weeks, it would be considered and decided expeditiously.
The record showed that the then A.C.J.M./Additional Civil Judge, Bareilly, did not follow and comply with the aforesaid order of the Court. Trial Court’s order dated 14-08-2025 showed that the compromise was filed by both parties and despite the same being verified by the Court, the trial court did not pass any order on the compromise. An order dated 28-08-2025 showed that the applicants were granted bail and that the matter was fixed for 29-08-2025 for charge. After three dates of hearing, on 20-09-2025, judgment was passed and the applicants were acquitted.
The Court stated that once the compromise was verified by the A.C.J.M., on 14-08-2025, the case must have been decided, but she forcefully put the accused persons on trial. I was found apparent that the A.C.J.M. had disregarded and violated this Court’s order in a flagrant, blatant manner, and in utter disregard to the provisions of law. The Court noted that in her explanation dated 15-04-2026, the A.C.J.M. had made a false statement that the parties did not press the compromise and that it was also mentioned that the accused person’s counsel requested for the trial stating that he would get his fees.
It was stated that the statements of the A.C.J.M. showed that she had no regard to this Court’s order and that she put the accused persons on trial to facilitate the counsel’s fees. The Court held that the Presiding Officer’s conduct was unbecoming of a judicial officer. The A.C.J.M. tendered an apology to the Court and in view of the same, the Court refrained from acting against the A.C.J.M., but warned her to be careful in future.
Lastly, since the trial court had already decided the matter, the Court rejected the prayer to recall the order dated 08-08-2025 and disposed of the application.
ALSO READ: Bombay High Court Grants Bail to Man Accused of Abetting Wife’s Suicide Over ₹5 Lakh Tractor Demand
