‘Unbecoming of a judicial officer’: Court pulls up judge for holding trial despite compromise

The high court recorded that two men accused of causing physical hurt and intimidating a person had filed a plea for quashing criminal proceedings against them, as the parties had reached a compromise. The plea was decided by the high court on August 8, 2025, where the trial court was directed to consider the compromise and decide the case expeditiously.

According to Justice Raj Beer Singh the conduct of the trial court judge was unbecoming of a judicial officer.

According to the judgment, the trial judge did not follow the order of the high court, and the August 14, 2025, order passed by the trial court shows that a compromise was filed by both parties and it was verified by the court but still the trial court did not pass any order on the compromise and fixed the case for the next date.

It came on record that on August 28, 2025, the men were granted bail, and on August 29, 2025, the charges were framed. Subsequently, on different dates, the statements of witnesses and accused were recorded. The accused were acquitted by the trial court on September 20, 2025.

‘Disregarded and violated’

The high court stated that once the compromise was verified, the case must have been decided based on compromise, but the trial court judge “forced the accused persons to obtain bail, framed charges, and put them on trial”. According to the court, it was apparent that the judge had “disregarded and violated the order of this Court in a flagrant and blatant manner and in utter disregard to the provisions of law”.

The high court called for the explanation of the trial court judge and noted that “it is clear that in her explanation dated April 15, 2026, the said Presiding Officer (judge) has made a false statement that the parties did not press the compromise, whereas the order sheet dated August 14, 2025, clearly shows that compromise was filed and even it was verified by the Presiding Officer”.

It was also observed by the court that in her explanation, the judge also mentioned that “the counsel for the 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.”

However, accepting the apology of the trial court judge, the high court directed that no further action was to be taken against her, and she was warned to be careful in the future.