Lok Adalat Cannot Compound Non-Compoundable Offences, Himachal Pradesh High Court Sets Aside Discharge Order in Section 324 IPC Case

SHIMLA: The Himachal Pradesh High Court has unequivocally ruled that a National Lok Adalat lacks the jurisdiction to entertain and pass orders in cases involving non-compoundable offences. Setting aside a discharge order passed by a Lok Adalat in a case under Section 324 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), the Court emphasized the clear statutory bar on such proceedings.

The decision came from a single-judge bench of Justice Rakesh Kainthla , who was hearing a petition filed by the State of Himachal Pradesh challenging the legality of the Lok Adalat's order.

Case Background

The case originated from a police challan filed against Gulshan Singh and others for offences including wrongful restraint (Section 341), intentional insult (Section 504), and voluntarily causing hurt by dangerous weapons (Section 324) of the IPC. After the accused were summoned by the trial court, the matter was listed for recording prosecution evidence.

At this stage, the parties filed an application to compound the offences, stating they had reached a compromise. The trial court referred this application to the National Lok Adalat for consideration. Based on the compromise statements of the complainant and the accused, the Lok Adalat on September 9, 2023, passed an order discharging the accused.

State's Challenge and Arguments

The State of Himachal Pradesh, represented by Additional Advocate General Mr. Lokender Kutlehria, challenged this order before the High Court. The primary argument was that the Lok Adalat had acted beyond its legal authority, as Section 324 of the IPC is a non-compoundable offence. It was contended that since the offence could not be legally compounded, the Lok Adalat had no jurisdiction to pass the discharge order based on a settlement.

Court's Analysis: A Jurisdictional Bar

Justice Kainthla, after a careful review of the law and precedents, concurred with the State's submissions. The judgment meticulously explained the legal position regarding the compounding of offences and the limited jurisdiction of Lok Adalats.

1. Status of Section 324 IPC: The Court noted that while Section 324 IPC was previously compoundable, the Code of Criminal Procedure (Amendment) Act, 2005, made it non-compoundable. This was further solidified by a subsequent amendment in 2008, which omitted the section entirely from the list of compoundable offences under Section 320 of the Cr.P.C.

2. Supreme Court Precedents: The High Court relied on several landmark Supreme Court rulings to fortify its reasoning. - In Mohd. Abdul Sufan Laskar v. State of Assam (2008) , the Apex Court confirmed that Section 324 IPC became non-compoundable effective June 23, 2006. - The principle was reiterated in Murali v. State (2021) , where the Supreme Court observed that the explicit prohibition in Section 320(9) of the Cr.P.C. ("no offence shall be compounded except as provided by this section") makes it impossible to compound offences not listed in the provided tables.

3. Jurisdiction of Lok Adalat: The judgment's core finding rested on the statutory limitations imposed on Lok Adalats. The Court highlighted Section 19(5) of the Legal Service Authorities Act , which explicitly states: "Lok Adalat shall have no jurisdiction in respect of any matter relating to an offence not compoundable under any law."

Citing a Karnataka High Court decision in State of Karnataka v. Shekhar (2021) , the Court observed that a case involving a non-compoundable offence cannot even be referred to a Lok Adalat, let alone be decided by it.

From the judgment, the Court quoted: > "Thus, the Lok Adalat could not have taken cognisance of the commission of an offence punishable under Section 324 of the IPC... Therefore, the Lok Adalat could not have compounded the offence as it was non-compoundable."

Final Decision and Implications

Allowing the State's petition, the High Court set aside the Lok Adalat's order dated September 9, 2023. The matter was remitted back to the learned Trial Court with a direction to proceed with the case in accordance with the law.

This judgment serves as a crucial reminder to lower courts and litigants about the jurisdictional boundaries of Lok Adalats. While these forums are vital for speedy dispute resolution through compromise, their authority is strictly confined to compoundable offences and civil matters, and they cannot usurp the jurisdiction of criminal courts in serious, non-compoundable cases.