Back
2017 Supreme(UK) 101
IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
Rajiv Sharma, J.
Jagdish Chander Kohli - Petitioner
Versus
State of Uttarakhand & others - Respondents
Criminal Misc. Application No. 475 of 2014
Decided On : 06-03-2017
For the Petitioner:Mr. Kanta Prasad, Advocate.
For the Respondents:Mr. Nandan Arya, Dy.A.G., Mr. Rajendra Singh, Advocate.
The Lok Adalat has jurisdiction to determine and arrive at a compromise or settlement between the parties to a dispute, but it shall have no jurisdiction in respect of any case or matter relating to an offence not compoundable under any law. The High Court has the power of judicial superintendence over the decisions of all courts and tribunals within its respective jurisdiction.
Headnote:
Lok Adalat - Jurisdiction - Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987 - Section 19(5), Article 227 of the Constitution of India, 1950, Article 32 of the Constitution of India, 1950, Section 21(2) of the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987, Section 279/338 of I.P.C. - 19(5) of the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987 provides jurisdiction to Lok Adalat to determine and arrive at a compromise or settlement between the parties to a dispute, but it shall have no jurisdiction in respect of any case or matter relating to an offence not compoundable under any law. The High Court has the power of judicial superintendence over the decisions of all courts and tribunals within its respective jurisdiction. The Lok Adalat has no jurisdiction to pass orders in cases involving non-compoundable offences. The power vested in the High Courts to exercise judicial superintendence over the decisions of all courts and tribunals within their respective jurisdictions is part of the basic structure of the Constitution. The order passed by Lok Adalat without jurisdiction can be set aside by the High Court.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner lodged an FIR against unknown persons, was injured, and the case was transferred to the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate. The case was preponed and decided by the Lok Adalat, which ordered the accused to pay a fine.
Finding of the Court:
The Lok Adalat had no jurisdiction to compound non-compoundable offences, and its order was without jurisdiction. The petitioner was not informed about the preponement of the case, and the principles of natural justice were violated.
Issues: Jurisdiction of Lok Adalat, Violation of Principles of Natural Justice
Ratio Decidendi: The Lok Adalat has jurisdiction to determine and arrive at a compromise or settlement between the parties to a dispute, but it shall have no jurisdiction in respect of any case or matter relating to an offence not compoundable under any law. The High Court has the power of judicial superintendence over the decisions of all courts and tribunals within its respective jurisdiction.
Final Decision: The petition is allowed, and the impugned order dated 23.11.2013 is set aside. The Trial Court is directed to restore the Criminal Case No.2287 of 2013 to its original number and to proceed with the matter in accordance with the law.
Rajiv Sharma, J.
This petition is directed against the order dated 23.11.2013 rendered by Lok Adalat.
2. “Key facts” necessary for adjudication of this petition are that an FIR was lodged by the petitioner-applicant on 13.04.2009 at P.S. Kotwali, Gangnahar, Roorkee initially against some unknown persons. In the instant case, notices were issued to the respondents, but they have chosen not to file the reply.
3. The applicant was badly injured. His backbone was fractured and he was referred to Delhi where he was operated upon. The applicant remained hospitalized for a period of one month at Delhi.
4. The trial of the case started as Case No.2287 of 2013 under Section 279/338 of I.P.C. The case was transferred to the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate (IInd), Roorkee.
5. The petitioner-applicant was present before the learned Court on 31.10.2013 and the next date was fixed on 20.12.2013 for calling the objections of both the parties. However, surprisingly, the case bearing no.2287/2013 was preponed and decided on 23.11.2013 by the Lok Adalat. The accused was ordered to pay Rs.800/- towards fine, as per Annexure No.3.
6. It is evident from the order dated 31.10.2013 that the matter was originally fixed for 23.11.2013. It is not discernible from the record why the date was preponed from 20.12.2013 to 23.11.2013 before the Lok Adalat. Lok Adalat has no jurisdiction to compound the offences under Section 279 of I.P.C.
7. Section 19 (5) of the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987 reads as under :
“(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 matter which is falling within the jurisdiction of, and is not brought before, 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.”
8. Lok Adalat had no jurisdiction to compound any non-compoundable offence. Lok Adalat has committed gross illegality by compounding the offences under Section 279 of IPC. The impugned order is without jurisdiction. The petitioner-applicant has never given his consent to compound the matter. The procedure adopted by the Lok Adalat was illegal and the order passed by Lok Adalat was also against the principle of equity and fair play. Lok Adalat could not go beyond the ambit of Sub-section (5) of Section 19 of the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act, 1987”) and the proceedings dated 23.11.2013 are nullity.
9. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent no.3 has referred to Section 21(2) of the Act, 1987 and argued that this Court has no jurisdiction to entertain the present petition.
10. In AIR 1952 Allahabad 783, in the case of “Jodhey & others vs. State through Ram Sahai”, learned Single Judge has explained the entire gamut of Article 227 of Constitution of India as under :
“14. A reading of the entire Article 227 of the Constitution of India in the light of the antecedent law on the subject leads one to the irresistible conclusion that the purpose of the constitution makers was to make the High Court responsible for the entire administration of justice and to vest in the High Court an unlimited reserve of judicial power which could be brought into play at any time that the High Court considered it necessary to draw upon the same. Springing as it does from the Constitution, which is the parent of all Acts and Statutes in India, the fact that the judgment or order of a Court or tribunal has been made final by an Act or the fact chat the body performing judicial functions is special tribunal constituted under a Statute cannot be set up as a bar to the exercise of this power by the High Court. The prohibited area is to be found within the four corners of the constitution itself and nowhere else.
15. The fact that these unlimited powers are vested in the
