Justice Raj Beer Singh noted that the High Court on August 8, 2025, had directed ACJM/ Additional Civil Judge to take a decision on the compromise application but instead she chose to conduct trial.
This was after the lawyer for the accused told her that he will get his fees if the matter goes to trial.
In the judgment passed on August 31, the High Court said that the trial judge had disregarded and violated the High Court order in a flagrant and blatant manner and in utter disregard to the provisions of law.
It noted that the judge made a false statement in her explanation that the parties had not pressed for compromise.
The Court found that a trial court order itself revealed that the compromise was filed and verified by the presiding officer.
Justice Raj Beer Singh noted that the High Court on August 8, 2025, had directed ACJM/ Additional Civil Judge to take a decision on the compromise application but instead she chose to conduct trial.
This was after the lawyer for the accused told her that he will get his fees if the matter goes to trial.
The accused were ultimately acquitted in the trial.
In the judgment passed on August 31, the High Court said that the trial judge had disregarded and violated the High Court order in a flagrant and blatant manner and in utter disregard to the provisions of law.
It noted that the judge made a false statement in her explanation that the parties had not pressed for compromise. The Court found that a trial court order itself revealed that the compromise was filed and verified by the presiding officer.
“This statement of the Presiding Officer again shows that she has no regard to the order of this Court and in order to facilitate the fees of counsel for accused, she put the applicants/ accused on trial, without passing any order on the compromise, which was duly verified,” the Court said.
