Back
2016 Supreme(MP) 921
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT JABALPUR BENCH
S.K. PALO, J.
Ram Milan Dubey - Applicant
Versus
Ku. Vandana Jain - Respondent
Cri. Rev. No. 2239 of 2015
Decided On : 22-08-2016
For the Applicants : Shri Ashish Shroti, Learned Counsel.
For the Respondent: Shri A.R.S. Chauhan, Learned P.L., Shri Dharam Raj Singh Chaudhary, learned counsel.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the Lok Adalat cannot dispose of cases without compromise or settlement, as per the Legal Services Authority Act, 1987, and that the withdrawal of prosecution under Section 321 of Cr.P.C can only be examined by a regular Court.
Headnote:
Lok Adalat - Jurisdiction of Lok Adalat to dispose of cases without compromise or settlement - Legal Services Authority Act, 1987 - Section 20 - Cr.P.C, Section 321 - State of Punjab v. Ganpat Raj, 2007 (1) M.P Weekly Note, 113 - State of Punjab and Another v. Jalour Singh and Others, (2008) 2 SCC 660 - P.T. Thomas v. Thomas Job, (2005) 6 SCC 478
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner's father purchased a property, and after his death, the petitioner became the owner. The respondent created hindrance in the petitioner's possession, leading to a criminal case. The case was withdrawn by the State Government under Section 321 of Cr.P.C, and the respondent challenged this withdrawal in a revisional Court.
Finding of the Court:
The revisional Court held that the withdrawal of the prosecution was not for a valid reason and restored the criminal case to its original number. The petitioners challenged this decision, arguing that the case was disposed of under the Legal Services Authority Act, 1987, and therefore not revisable or appealable.
Issues: The main issues were the jurisdiction of the Lok Adalat to dispose of cases without compromise or settlement, the validity of the withdrawal of the prosecution under Section 321 of Cr.P.C, and the revisability of the order under the Legal Services Authority Act, 1987.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the Lok Adalat cannot dispose of cases without compromise or settlement, as per the Legal Services Authority Act, 1987. It also emphasized that the withdrawal of prosecution under Section 321 of Cr.P.C can only be examined by a regular Court, not a Lok Adalat.
Final Decision: The revision was dismissed, and the order restoring the criminal case was upheld.
S.K. PALO, J.
1. Heard.
2. This revision under Section 397 read with Section 401 has been preferred challenging the order dated 13.08.2015 passed by 9th A.S.J, Jabalpur in Criminal Revision No. 60/2014, whereby the revision filed by the respondent was allowed and order of the J.M.F.C, Jabalpur dated 30.11.2013 was set aside and Criminal Case No. 8415/2010 was restored to its original number.
3. Filtering the unnecessary details, the facts requisite for disposal of this petition are that the petitioners' father purchased land with house vide registered sale deed dated 16.07.1940. The house was numbered 1493/1 and renumbered from time to time by the Municipal Corporation and presently numbered 3155.
4. After the death of his father, the petitioner No. 1 became the owner of the property and is residing there. Respondent/non-applicant No. 1 created hindrance in the petitioners' peaceful possession over the said property. Therefore, civil litigation started which are pending before various Courts. Respondent No. 1 lodged a report before Police Station Garha for offence under Section 294, 506 and 323/34 of I.P.C. This Criminal Case No. 8415/2010 was pending before J.M.F.C, Jabalpur. In the "National Lok Adalat" dated 30.11.2013, the same was withdrawn by the State Government under Section 321 of Code of Criminal Procedure. Therefore, the same was dismissed as withdrawn by the prosecution in public interest. This withdrawal of the case was challenged by respondent No. 1 before the learned 9th A.S.J, Jabalpur as Criminal Revision No. 60/2014 in which the learned A.S.J held that the order dated 30.11.2013 passed by J.M.F.C, Jablapur is not an award passed by the Lok Adalat and in this circumstances, the legality of the said order can be challenged in revision.
5. It is further held that the withdrawal of the prosecution was not for valid reason. Therefore, the order dated 30.11.2013 was set aside and restored the Criminal Case No. 8415/2010 to decide in it's original number. C.J.M, Jabalpur was directed to proceed in the matter or to refer it to any appropriate Court.
6. The petitioners challenged the said order of the revisional Court and requested for restoring the order of J.M.F.C on several ground.
7. It is stated that as per the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987, the case was disposed of, therefore, the order is not revisable nor appeal-able.
8. Learned counsel for the respondent No. 1 submits that the criminal case pending before the J.M.F.C was neither compromised nor settled between the parties, therefore, the matter was not a settlement or award as per the ambit of Legal Session Authorities Act, 1987.
9. Application under Section 321 of Cr.P.C had no consent of the complainant. Therefore, order dated 30.11.2013 passed by the J.M.F.C, Jabalpur was not good in the eyes of law. The learned revisional Court has passed order dated 13.08.2015 which is well merited and does not warrant any interference.
10. Heard the rival contentions and perused the record.
Vide order dated 30.11.2013 in the National Lok Adalat, the Criminal Case No. 8415/2010 for offence under Sections 294, 323 and 506 (ii) of I.P.C have been withdrawn by the prosecution which was allowed under Section 321 of the Cr.P.C. The accused/petitioners were acquitted for the said offences.
11. Aggrieved by this the respondent No. 1 challenged the same before the revisional Court and the revisional Court after elaborate order has restored the criminal case to decide original number stating that it is not a "compromise" nor "award"
12. The matter which can be taken by the Lok Adalat for disposal are enumerated in Section 20 of the Legal Services Authority Act, 1986 which reads as under:-
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 Cour
