Back
Censures Judge for Holding Trial to Help Lawyer Earn Fees Despite
A Judge's Duty Betrayed
In a strongly worded order, the censured a judicial officer for blatantly violating its directive and conducting a full trial even after the parties had filed a . Justice Raj Beer Singh found that Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division) Ms. Anupriya ignored the High Court's order to decide the application, instead proceeding with the case to facilitate the accused's lawyer's fees. The Court accepted her apology but issued a stern warning.
The That Was Ignored
The case arose from a criminal complaint under . The applicants, Arshad and Dularey, sought quashing of the proceedings before the High Court on the ground that they had amicably settled the dispute with the opposite party. On , the High Court disposed of their application under , directing the trial court to decide the application expeditiously and granting for two weeks.
On , the parties appeared before Ms. Anupriya, filed the , and the judge herself verified it. Yet, instead of passing an order on the , she fixed the matter for hearing. On , she granted to the accused; on , she ; on , she recorded prosecution witnesses; on , she recorded statements under ; and on , she delivered a judgment acquitting the accused.
Fee Over Fairness: The Lawyer's Demand
The High Court called for an explanation from the judicial officer. In her response, Ms. Anupriya claimed that the parties did not press the . She further stated that the counsel for the accused had told her that he would get his fees only if the case went to trial, and that upon his request she proceeded with the trial.
Justice Raj Beer Singh rejected this explanation outright. The Court noted that the order sheet of August 14 clearly showed the
was filed and verified.
"It cannot be accepted that they would not press the
and would choose to face the trial,"
the Court observed. It added that the judge's statement showed she had
"no regard to the order of this Court"
and that she put the accused on trial
"in order to facilitate the fees of counsel for accused."
High Court's Stinging Rebuke
The Court described the judge's conduct as
"unbecoming of a judicial officer"
and a "flagrant and blatant" disregard of its order. It found that she had made a "false statement" in her explanation and had acted
"in utter disregard to the provisions of law."
Despite the gravity of the misconduct, the Court accepted the apology tendered by Ms. Anupriya through counsel, noting that she had a long career.
"No further action is taken or recommended... but she is warned to be careful in future,"
the order stated.
Final Outcome: Apology Accepted, Warning Issued
The filed by the accused was dismissed as the trial had already concluded with their . The High Court, however, made it clear that such conduct would not be tolerated and that judicial officers must scrupulously follow the orders of superior courts.
