IMPORTANT POINT
Lok Adalats lack adjudicatory power and cannot withdraw criminal prosecutions without judicial consent, emphasizing the need for mutual agreement between parties.

ORDER :

1. By way of the instant criminal writ petition, the petitioner-complainant has approached this Court for quashing and setting aside the order dated 11.02.2023 passed by a Member of The National Lok Adalat Bench No. 2, Neem Ka Thana, District Sikar whereby the Lok Adalat has allowed the Assistant Public Prosecutor to withdraw the criminal prosecution of Criminal Case No. 402/2019 (CIS No. 1483/2019) arising out of FIR No. 272/2019 registered at Police Station Patan, District Sikar and acquitted the accused respondents from offences under Sections 323 and 341 of IPC.

2. The grievance of the petitioner is that the impugned order dated 11.02.2023 is illegal, arbitrary and contrary to law and therefore, the same is liable to be set aside. He contends that the Lok Adalat has no jurisdiction to allow withdrawal of criminal prosecution. He argues that the Lok Adalat passed the impugned order in gross violation of principle of natural justice as the petitioner was not even noticed before passing the impugned order. He submits that the Lok Adalat can dispose of the cases only on compromise between the parties. He submits that in an identical matter being S.B. Criminal Writ Petition No. 365/2023: Shyam Bacchani v. State of Rajasthan & Ors, decided on 01.03.2023, the learned co-ordinate Bench has held that the Lok Adalats have no adjudicatory power and by allowing the prayer of learned Public Prosecutor to withdraw prosecution, the Lok Adalat therein has exercised adjudicatory jurisdiction. With these submission, he prays that the misc. petition may be accepted and the impugned order dated 11.02.2023 may be set aside.

3. Learned State Counsel contends that under Section 321 of Cr.P.C., the learned Public Prosecutor is competent to withdraw criminal prosecution specially considering trivial nature of offences alleged, which is compoundable and bailable.

4. I have heard and considered the submissions advanced at bar and have perused the material available on record as also gone through the order passed in the case of Shyam Bacchani (supra). The controversy involved in this case is squarely covered in the case of Shyam Bacchani (supra), which is reproduced herein below for the sake of ready-reference:

“1. Heard the petitioner in person as well as learned Public Prosecutor for the State.

2. The question raised in this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is whether the Lok Adalats under Chapter VI of the Legal Services Authority Act, 1987 have adjudicatory power or are required to pass awards only on consensus of the parties.

3. By the impugned order dated 14.05.2022, a Bench of the Lok Adalat, Jaipur has allowed the Assistant Public Prosecutor to withdraw the criminal prosecution arising out of FIR No. 537/2018 corresponding to Criminal Case No. 13/2019 and discharged the accused from offences under Sections 323 and 341 of IPC.

4. The impugned order reads as under:

lgk;d vfHk;kstu vf/kdkjh mifLFkrA egkuxj eftLVªsV Øe 10 t;iqj egkuxj f}rh; esa yafcr i=koyh jk”Vªh; yksd vnkyr esa is'k gqbZA lgk;d vfHk;kstu vf/kdkjh }kjk jkT; ljdkj ds vkns'k Øekad Ik-16 ¼01½ y-iz-@fofo/k@x`g&10@2020 fnukad 12-05-2022 dh ikyuk esa izdj.k dks okil fd;s tkus gsrq izkFkZuk i= i`Fkd ls izLrqr fd;k x;kA Ik=koyh dk voyksdu fd;k x;kA lgk;d vfHk;kstu vf/kdkjh izkFkZuk i= ds vk/kkj ij izdj.k okil fd;s tkus dh vuqefr nh tkdj vfHk;qDrx.k fodkl iq= eksrhyky o dfork iRuh fodkl dks vkjksfir vijk/k varxZr /kkjk 323] 341] 34 vkbZihlh ds vijk/k ls mUeksfpr@nks”keqDr fd;k tkrk gSA i=koyh esa dksbZ dk;Zokgh 'ks”k ugha gSA i=koyh QSly 'kqekj gksdj ckn rdehy nkf[ky nrj gksA

5. The petitioner is informant of FIR No. 537/2018 registered with Police Station Bhankrota, Jaipur (West) for offences under Sections 323, 341 and 34 of IPC. The FIR discloses dispute between the two neighbours. After investigation of the case, the Police submitted charge-sheet for offence under Sections 341 and 323 of IPC.

6. Grievance of the petitioner is that Lok Adalat has no jurisdiction to