Back
2014 Supreme(Tri) 147
IN THE HIGH COURT OF TRIPURA
S.C. Das, J.
Ashoke Datta - Appellant
Versus
State of Tripura - Respondent
CRP No. 28 of 2014
Decided On : 10-04-2014
For the Appellant :Mr. P. Roy Barman and Mr. Suman Bhattacharji, Advocates
For the Respondents: None
The main legal point established in the judgment is the finality and binding nature of settlements in the Lok Adalat, as governed by the provisions of the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987, particularly Section 20.
Headnote:
Lok Adalat - Criminal Assault - Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987, Section 20 - The court discussed the provisions of Section 20 of the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987, which govern the cognizance of cases by Lok Adalats. The court emphasized that a settlement in the Lok Adalat is final and binding on all parties and cannot be challenged in any other forum. The court also highlighted the principles of justice, equity, and fair play that guide the Lok Adalat in arriving at a compromise or settlement.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, a physically handicapped Junior Engineer, filed a petition challenging the compounding of a criminal assault case in the National Lok Adalat. He alleged that the reference to the Lok Adalat and the subsequent settlement on compromise were wrong and violative of the provisions of the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the reference to the Lok Adalat and the subsequent settlement on compromise were in accordance with the provisions of the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987. It emphasized that the settlement in the Lok Adalat is final and binding on all parties and cannot be challenged in any other forum.
Issues: The issues revolved around the petitioner's contention that he was not heard before the reference to the Lok Adalat and that the settlement on compromise was invalid. The court addressed the validity of the reference and the settlement in the Lok Adalat in light of the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was based on the interpretation of the provisions of the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987, particularly Section 20, which governs the cognizance of cases by Lok Adalats. The court emphasized the finality and binding nature of settlements in the Lok Adalat and the guiding principles of justice, equity, and fair play.
Final Decision: The petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India was dismissed by the court, upholding the validity of the reference to the Lok Adalat and the subsequent settlement on compromise.
JUDGMENT
S.C. Das, J.:-Heard learned counsel, Mr. P. Roy Barman for the petitioner.
2. By filing this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner challenged compounding of PRC Case No. 1234 of 2011 in the National Lok Adalat held on 23.11.2013. The petitioner, a Junior Engineer, working in DWS Department of the Government of Tripura, a physically handicapped, lodged an FIR on 25.11.2011 before O/C, East Agartala PS alleging that on that day at about 10.30 am while he went to the office of the Chief Engineer of Water Resources, the Section Officer, Makhan Debbarma assaulted him physically with fists and blows, and as a result he, being a physically handicapped person fell down and received injury. He was taken to hospital and was treated there. Based on the FIR, East Agartala PS Case No. 265 of 2011 under Section 324 read with Section 34 of IPC was registered and after investigation police submitted charge sheet and on the basis of the charge sheet learned Chief Judicial Magistrate on 26.03.2012 took cognizance of offence punishable under Section 325 of IPC and ultimately transferred the case to the Court of Judicial Magistrate, First Class(T. Debbarma), Agartala.
3. National Lok Adalat was scheduled to be held on 23.11.2013 and learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class by order dated 01.11.2013 referred the case to the National Lok Adalat for disposal on compromise. Accordingly, the case was taken up in the Lok Adalat on the date fixed in the presence of both the parties(victim/injured person and accused) and was disposed of on compromise between the parties.
4. The present petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is filed challenging the order of reference to Lok Adalat and the order of settlement on compromise in the Lok Adalat on the ground that the petitioner was not heard at the time when the reference was made and so, the very inception of taking up the matter in the Lok Adalat was wrong and violative of the provisions prescribed in Section 20of the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987. It is submitted by learned counsel, Mr. Roy Barman that the petitioner is a physically handicapped person and he was always eager to proceed with the trial of the case for the punishment of the accused and was never interested to have a compromise. Had he was heard by the Court before the reference was made to the Lok Adalat he would not have given his consent for reference the case. In the Lok Adalat his signature was obtained in blank paper since he was put to surprise in the Lok Adalat and no valid consent was given by the petitioner for settlement of the case on compromise.
5. A compromise or a settlement in the Lok Adalat is final and binding on all the parties to the settlement, agreement or compromise and cannot be challenged in any other forum as prescribed under Section 22E of the Legal Services Authorities Act.
6. In a petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India the power of this Court is to be exercised in a case where the inferior Court or the tribunal acted without jurisdiction or there is an apparent error of law in the order passed or that the finding is totally perverse or that there was a gross violation of the principles of natural justice. Definitely, this Court can look into the correctness, legality or property of an order passed by an inferior Court or tribunal. But this power does not vest the High Court with any unlimited prerogative to correct all species of hardship or wrong decision. It must be restricted to cases of grave dereliction of duty and flagrant abuse of fundamental principles of law or justice, where grave injustice would be done unless the High Court interferes.
7. In the present case, offence alleged to have committed was compoundable in nature, since cognizance was taken under Section 325 of IPC. By impugned order dated 01.11.2013, the case was referred to Lok Adalat. Learned counsel, Mr. Roy Barman seriously criticized that order since the petitioner
