IMPORTANT POINT
The court emphasized that dismissal orders cannot be made during a lok adalat and highlighted the provisions of Section 256 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, which permits the court to acquit the accused if the complainant does not remain present on a stipulated date.

JUDGMENT :

1. This appeal is filed challenging the judgment and order of acquittal passed under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act by the learned Additional Judicial Magistrate First Class, Himmatnagar dated 13.05.2023 in Criminal Case No.5253 of 2014.

2. It is the case of the complainant that the complainant is the wholesaler and doing the business in the name and style of ‘M/s.Chunilal Chhaganlal Mehta’. The respondents - accused are running the ginning factory and were having the business relations with the complainant. The accused purchased the cotton from the complainant and for the payment of the said goods, the cheque of Rs.3,54,611/- was issued in favour of the complainant. On depositing the said cheque, it was returned with an endorsement of “excess amount than the permissible limit”. Thereafter, on following the procedure prescribed under the Negotiable Instruments Act, the private complaint came to be filed before the competent Court.

3. The learned trial Court has issued the summons after recording the verification on 26.09.2014. Thereafter, the case was adjourned from time to time. On 13.05.2023, when the impugned order was passed, there was a lok adalat and the learned trial Court has dismissed the complaint by exercising the power under Section 256 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, which is impugned before this Court.

4. Heard learned advocate Mr.Jayeep Sindhi for the complainant and Mr.Harshad Barot for the private respondents.

5. Learned advocate Mr.Sindhi submits that the case was at the stage of service of summons on the accused and was referred to the lok adalat which was held on 13.05.2023. The learned advocate submits that on the day when the impugned order was passed, the complainant or his advocate remained absent but, the learned trial Court in a special sitting, passed the impugned order which is beyond the power and, therefore, the same is required to be quashed and set aside.

6. As against the same, learned advocate Mr.Barot is not able to dispute the fact that the impugned order was passed by the learned trial Court in a lok adalat sitting. However, the learned advocate submits that not only on the occasion when the impugned order was passed but, as per the rojkam, it reflects that on number of occasions, the complainant and his advocate remained absent, therefore, the learned trial Court has exercised the power in special sitting and passed the impugned order and, therefore, it was prayed not to interfere with the order and dismiss the appeal.

7. Considering the submissions advanced by the learned advocates for the respective parties, from the rojkam, it transpires that on 13.05.2023, the following entry was made:- “Today, in the lok adalat, exh.1 order passed dismissing the complaint because of default on the part of the complainant.”

8. This order deserves to be interfered for more than one reasons that;

(i) The order was passed by the learned trial Court in a lok adalat.

(ii) The order of dismissal of the case for want of prosecution is not permissible when the Court is sitting in a lok adalat.

(iii) It is a settled law and on couple of occasions, the Apex Court and even this Court had also categorically directed that no dismissal order can be made during the lok adalat. The lok adalat is meant for parties to negotiate and arrive at an amicable settlement. For adjudication of matter on merits or for that matter, any dismissal for want of prosecution, the same is permissible on a full-fledged Court on working day. In other words, it is also impermissible on a holiday or in lok adalat, in special sitting to dismiss any complaint under Section 256 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, as has been done in the instant case.

(iv) Section 256 of the Code of Criminal Procedure permits the Court to acquit the accused if the complainant does not remain present on a stipulated date, when the date was appointed for appearance of the accused and if he does not appear, the learned Magistrate is authorized to ac