IMPORTANT POINT
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the Lok Adalat has no jurisdiction to adjudicate the matter on merits if no compromise or settlement is arrived at between the parties.

JUDGMENT :

1. This appeal is filed under section 378 of the Criminal Procedure Code (hereinafter referred to as Cr.P.C.) by the appellant-original complainant, challenging the judgment and order passed by the Learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate Taluka Idar, District Sabarkantha dated 13-05- 2023, dismissing the complaint by exercising the power under section 256 of the Cr.P.C in special sitting (Lok Adalat).

2. It is the case of the complainant that, the complainant and the respondent-accused were friends and were having family relation, hence when the respondent-accused informed the complainant regarding purchasing of a flat at Gandhinagar, complainant immediately gave Rs.2,40,000/- as down-payment for the possession of the house to respondent-accused, but later respondent-accused informed the complainant that it was not possible to obtain the possession of the said flat and also assured him that the amount paid by the complainant shall be returned back to him. On making demand the two cheques bearing No.161746 dated 24-05-2018 and No. 161712 dated 09-08-2018 for the amount of Rs.36,000/- and Rs.2,00,000/- respectively were issued in favor of the complainant. At the time of issuing the cheque, an assurance was given that, on depositing the same, an amount will be credited in the account of the complainant.

3. On depositing the cheque, same was returned with an endorsement of ‘fund insufficient’, therefore the demand notice was issued to the respondent-accused on 31-08-2018 which was received by the respondent-accused on 12-09-2018. As the demand notice was neither replied nor complied with, on following the procedure prescribed under the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1886 (‘the N.I.Act’ referred hereinafter), a private complaint was filed. After recording the verification, learned Trial Court passed an order below Exh.1 issuing the summons under section 204 of the Cr.P.C. vide order dated 24-10-2018. Though the summons/warrants were issued, the respondent remained absent, therefore by impugned order dated 13- 05-2023, the learned Trial Court while sitting in Lok Adalat has dismissed the complaint by observing that though more than sufficient opportunities were provided, but no fruitful actions were taken to serve the respondent-accused, therefore learned Trial Court has dismissed the complaint by exercising the power under section 256 of the Cr.P.C. which is impugned before this Court.

4. Heard Learned Advocate Ms.K.P.Soni for the appellantcomplainant and Mr.Neeraj Soni for the respondent-accused.

5. Learned Advocate Ms.K.P.Soni for the appellant submits that, the address on which the summons has been issued by the Learned Trial Court is the same address which is mentioned in the appeal memo before this Court.

6. Learned Advocate Ms.K.P.Soni submits that on receiving the notice, respondent-accused appeared in person and thereafter represented through the Learned Advocate which shows that respondent-accused somehow managed the service of the notice/summons before the learned Trial Court.

7. Learned Advocate Ms.K.P.Soni submits that, though complainant made all his efforts to serve the summons to the respondent-accused, however he failed and the learned Trial Court while sitting in the Lok Adalat has passed the impugned judgment and order.

8. Learned Advocate Ms.K.P.Soni submits that while sitting in the Lok Adalat, the learned Trial Court can dispose of the matters which are settled and if matter is not disposed of then it is to be sent back to the regular Court for adjudicating it on merits. However, the learned Trial Court beyond its jurisdiction has passed judgment and order of the acquittal by exercising the power under section 256 of Cr.P.C.

9. Learned Advocate Ms.K.P.Soni submits that the complaint under the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1886 would fall under the time bar litigation and on dismissing the complaint the complainant would be left remediless and therefore Learned Advocate Ms.Soni requested to quash the impugned