The Allahabad High Court has refused to recall its earlier order in a case involving Arshad and Dularey, but strongly criticised a former judicial officer for proceeding with the trial despite a compromise between the parties having already been filed and verified.
Justice Raj Beer Singh passed the order on August 31, 2026, while dealing with a recall application in Application under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) No. 27772 of 2025.
Background of the Case
Arshad and Dularey had approached the High Court seeking quashing of criminal proceedings arising from Case Crime No. 190 of 2024, registered at Premnagar Police Station in Bareilly. The proceedings concerned Sections 323 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code.
The High Court, in its earlier order dated August 8, 2025, noted that the parties had settled their dispute. Since the offences involved were compoundable, meaning the law permits the parties to settle them, the Court directed them to place the compromise before the trial court within two weeks. It also ordered that no coercive action be taken against the applicants during that period and until the compromise application was decided.
The High Court later found that the compromise was filed before the trial court on August 14, 2025, and was verified by the court. However, no order was passed on the compromise.
Instead, the applicants were granted bail, charges were framed on August 29, and the trial proceeded. Statements of prosecution witnesses were recorded on September 1, followed by statements of the accused and arguments on September 8. The trial court ultimately acquitted the applicants on September 20, 2025.
The High Court noted that once the compromise had been verified, the matter should have been dealt with on that basis rather than proceeding to trial.
"The conduct of the said Presiding Officer is unbecoming of a judicial officer," Justice Raj Beer Singh observed.
The High Court had called for an explanation from Ms. Anupriya, the then A.C.J.M./Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Court No. 7, Bareilly.
In her explanation dated April 15, 2026, she stated that the parties had not pressed the compromise. The High Court, however, found this inconsistent with the August 14 order-sheet, which recorded that the compromise had been filed and verified.
The Court also took note of the explanation that the accused's counsel had allegedly wanted the matter to proceed after witnesses gave hostile statements so that counsel could receive his fees. The High Court found that this explanation further demonstrated disregard of its earlier direction.
Counsel appearing on behalf of Ms. Anupriya submitted that she had tendered an apology and requested that it be accepted in view of her long judicial career.
The High Court accepted the apology to the extent that no further action was taken or recommended against her. However, the Court warned her to remain careful in future.
As the trial court had already decided the case, the High Court refused to recall its August 8, 2025 order and disposed of the recall application.
