In an application filed before the Allahabad High Court under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973[1] (CrPC), a Single Judge Bench of Justice Anish Kumar Gupta quashed the impugned order passed in the Lok Adalat whereby the complaint of the applicant was dismissed. The Court also directed that a warning be issued to the Judicial Officer concerned as the matter was taken up in the Lok Adalat without following the relevant provisions of the Legal Services Authority Act, 1987 (Act).
The applicant, in the present matter, filed a complaint case under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (NI Act). On 09-12-2017, the matter was taken up in the Lok Adalat, and since no one appeared on behalf of the complainant, the same was dismissed under Section 203, CrPC[2].
The applicant submitted that he did not give any consent for the matter to be taken up in the Lok Adalat. It was contended that such consent is a precondition for taking up any matter in Lok Adalat as per Section 20 Act.
The Court perused the complete records of the case and referred to the categorical provisions of Sections 19 and 20 of the Act. It was stated that if a matter is pending before any court and is compoundable, it can be referred to the Lok Adalat either with the consent of the parties or on an application after giving an opportunity of hearing to other parties. Further, it was stated that unless the parties arrive at a settlement and compromise, the Lok Adalat can make no award, and the matter has to be returned to the court concerned.
The Court noted that neither party had made an application for referring the matter to the Lok Adalat, nor had they given their consent. It was stated that the court, without obtaining the consent of the applicant and without intimating him, had taken up the case on its own motion in the Lok Adalat. The Court said that even if the matter was taken up in the absence of the parties, it was not permissible to dismiss the case for the absence of the complainant.
Thus, the court opined that the impugned order passed by the Lok Adalat was not sustainable under any canons of law and quashed the same. Further, the matter was remitted back to the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Etah, to decide the case from the stage at which it was referred and dismissed in the Lok Adalat.
Lastly, the Court noted that judicial officers are prompted to dispose of cases in the Lok Adalat without following the provisions as mentioned above. It was said that the instant matter was the gravest example of such irresponsible and unauthorised actions. The Court directed that a warning be issued to the Judicial Officer concerned, so that he does not repeat such actions in the future.
Appearances:
For Applicant – Mr. Nilank Kumar Jain
For Opposite Party(s) – G.A., Mr. Shashi Kumar Mishra
[1] Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023
[2] Section 226 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023
