Back
2017 Supreme(All) 2567
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD AT LUCKNOW BENCH
ATTAU RAHMAN MASOODI, J.
SANJAY KUMAR SINGH - Appellant
Versus
STATE - Respondent
Under Section 482/378/407 No. 4729 of 2017
Decided on : 21-08-2017
For the Appellant :Satendra Kumar (Singh) and Satyendra Prakash Singh, Advocates
For the Respondent:Ashok Kumar Srivastava, Govt. Advocate
The main legal point established in the judgment is the importance of compliance with statutory procedures for reference and settlement in Lok Adalats, the finality of awards made by Lok Adalats, and the principles of justice, equity, fair play, and legal principles guiding Lok Adalat proceedings.
Headnote:
Lok Adalat - Legal Services Authority Act - 19, 20, 21 - The judgment discusses the provisions of the Legal Services Authority Act, 1987, particularly Sections 19, 20, and 21, which deal with the organization of Lok Adalats, the cognizance of cases by Lok Adalats, and the finality of awards made by Lok Adalats. The court analyzes the validity of the reference to Lok Adalat, the requirement of parties being heard, and the maintainability of revision against the Lok Adalat's order. The judgment emphasizes the principles of justice, equity, fair play, and legal principles guiding Lok Adalat proceedings and highlights the importance of compliance with statutory procedures for reference and settlement in Lok Adalats.
Fact of the Case:
The case involves a dispute where an F.I.R. was lodged, and a final report was filed before the court. The complainant refused to accept the notice for settlement before the Lok Adalat, and the case was disposed of without the participation of one of the parties. The accused filed a recall application, which was rejected, leading to a criminal revision. The revisional court set aside the Lok Adalat's order, prompting the accused to challenge it in the present petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C., 1973.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the reference to Lok Adalat was invalid due to lack of compliance with the statutory requirements for parties being heard and the nature of the case falling beyond the jurisdiction of Lok Adalat. The court also held that the Lok Adalat's order was without jurisdiction. While acknowledging the maintainability of revision against Lok Adalat's order, the court emphasized that the remedy under procedural laws is of no avail against a valid compromise/settlement arrived at before the Lok Adalat.
Issues: The issues considered by the court include the validity of the reference to Lok Adalat, the maintainability of revision against Lok Adalat's order, and the validity of the order passed by the Lok Adalat without the participation of one of the parties.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was based on the lack of compliance with statutory procedures for reference and settlement in Lok Adalats, the nature of the case falling beyond the jurisdiction of Lok Adalat, and the finality of awards made by Lok Adalats. The court emphasized the principles of justice, equity, fair play, and legal principles guiding Lok Adalat proceedings.
Final Decision: The petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C., 1973 was dismissed, and the accused was given the option to apply for bail within a specified period. The benefit of interim order dated 26.7.2017 was made available for a period of four weeks subject to the appearance of the petitioner within the same period.
ATTAU RAHMAN MASOODI, J.
1. Heard Sri Satyendra Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Ashok Kumar Srivastava, who has put in appearance on behalf of opposite party no. 2. Sri Anurag Verma, learned AGA has appeared on behalf of the State.
2. This petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C., 1973 raises an interesting and pertinent question of law that has a bearing upon the settlements arrived at through Lok Adalats held under Section 19 of the Legal Services Authority Act, 1987 (hereinafter referred to as the Act of 1987). Cognizance of cases by Lok Adalats is provided for under Section 20 of the Legal Service Authority Act, 1987 which for ready reference is reproduced hereunder:
"20. Cognizance of cases by Lok Adalats.
-
(1) Where in any case referred to in clause (i) of sub-section (5) of section 19-
(i) (a) the parties thereof agree; or
(b) one of the parties thereof makes an application to the court, for referring the case to the Lok Adalat for settlement and if such court is prima facie satisfied that there are chances of such settlement; or
(ii) the court is satisfied that the matter is an appropriate one to be taken cognizance of by the Lok Adalat, the court shall refer the case to the Lok Adalat:
Provided that no case shall be referred to the Lok Adalat under sub-clause (b) of clause (i) or clause (ii) by such court except after giving a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the parties.
(2) Notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for the time being in force, the Authority or Committee organising the Lok Adalat under sub-section (1) of section 19 may, on receipt of an application from any one of the parties to any matter referred to in clause (ii) of sub-section (5) of section 19 that such matter needs to be determined by a Lok Adalat, refer such matter to the Lok Adalat, for determination:
Provided that no matter shall be referred to the Lok Adalat except after giving a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the other party.
(3) Where any case is referred to a Lok Adalat under subsection (1) or where a reference has been made to it under sub-section (2), the Lok Adalat shall proceed to dispose of the case or matter and arrive at a compromise or settlement between the parties.
(4) Every Lok Adalat shall, while determining any reference before it under this Act, act with utmost expedition to arrive at a compromise or settlement between the parties and shall be guided by the principles of justice, equity, fair play and other legal principles.
(5) Where no award is made by the Lok Adalat on the ground that no compromise or settlement could be arrived at between the parties, the record of the case shall be returned by it to the court, from which the reference has been received under sub-section (1) for disposal in accordance with law.
(6) Where no award is made by the Lok Adalat on the ground that no compromise or settlement could be arrived at between the parties, in a matter referred to in sub-section (2), that Lok Adalat shall advice the parties to seek remedy in a court.
(7) Where the record of the case is returned under subsection (5) to the court, such court shall proceed to deal with such case from the stage which was reached before such reference under sub-section (1).
3. A perusal of Section 20 sub-section (1) makes it clear that the cases referred to in clause (i) of sub-section (5) of Section 19 are cognizable by Lok Adalats. Clause (i) of sub-section (5) of Section 19 of the Act of 1987 is also extracted hereunder:
"19. Organisation of Lok Adalats. -
(1) ........
(2) ........
(3) ........
(4) ........
(5) A Lok Adalat shall have jurisdiction to determine and to arrive at a compromise or settlement between the parties to a dispute in respect of-
(i) any case pending before; or
(ii) ........
any court for which the Lok Adalat is organised
Provided that the Lok Adalat shall have no jurisdiction in respect of any case or matter relating to an offence not compoundable under any law."
4. The above pro
