Rajasthan High Court: Lok Adalats Cannot Permit Withdrawal of Criminal Cases, Lack Adjudicatory Power

Jaipur , Rajasthan – The Rajasthan High Court has decisively ruled that Lok Adalats do not possess the adjudicatory powers necessary to permit the withdrawal of criminal prosecutions under Section 321 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.). The Court emphasized that Lok Adalats are forums for compromise and settlement between parties, and allowing withdrawal of prosecution is a judicial function requiring the consent of a competent court.

The High Court quashed an order dated February 11, 2023, issued by a National Lok Adalat in Neem Ka Thana, District Sikar , which had allowed the Assistant Public Prosecutor (APP) to withdraw a criminal case (Criminal Case No. 402/2019 from FIR No. 272/2019, P.S. Patan) involving offences under Sections 323 (voluntarily causing hurt) and 341 (wrongful restraint) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), leading to the acquittal of the accused.

Background of the Challenge

The petitioner, who was the original complainant in the criminal case, approached the High Court arguing that the Lok Adalat's order was illegal, arbitrary, and passed in gross violation of the principles of natural justice, as they were not even notified before the order was passed. The core contention was that Lok Adalats lack jurisdiction to allow withdrawal of criminal prosecution and can only dispose of cases based on a compromise between the parties.

The petitioner relied on a precedent set by a co-ordinate Bench of the High Court in Shyam Bacchani v. State of Rajasthan & Ors. (S.B. Criminal Writ Petition No. 365/2023, decided on 01.03.2023), which held that Lok Adalats have no adjudicatory power, and allowing withdrawal of prosecution amounts to exercising such jurisdiction.

Arguments Presented

The petitioner argued: * The Lok Adalat overstepped its jurisdiction. * The order violated principles of natural justice as the complainant was not heard. * Lok Adalats are mandated to facilitate settlements, not adjudicate on prosecutorial withdrawal applications.

The State Counsel contended: * Under Section 321 Cr.P.C., the Public Prosecutor is competent to withdraw criminal prosecution, especially considering the trivial, compoundable, and bailable nature of the alleged offences (Sections 323 and 341 IPC).

High Court's Reliance on Precedent: The Shyam Bacchani Ruling

The High Court found the current case to be "squarely covered" by its earlier decision in Shyam Bacchani . The judgment extensively reproduced the reasoning from the Shyam Bacchani case, which addressed the fundamental question: "whether the Lok Adalats under Chapter VI of the Legal Services Authority Act, 1987 have adjudicatory power or are required to pass awards only on consensus of the parties."

Lok Adalat's Role: Settlement, Not Adjudication

In Shyam Bacchani , the Court analyzed Sections 19 and 20 of the Legal Services Authority Act, 1987. It highlighted:

* Section 19(5): Lok Adalats have jurisdiction "to determine and to arrive at a compromise or settlement between the parties."

* Section 20(3) & (4): Lok Adalats "shall proceed to dispose of the case or matter and arrive at a compromise or settlement between the parties" and must act "with utmost expedition to arrive at a compromise or settlement."

* Section 20(5): If "no compromise or settlement could be arrived at," the case record is returned to the court from which it was referred.

The High Court, in Shyam Bacchani , concluded from these provisions:

"the Lok Adalat has to endeavour that the parties arrive at a compromise and settlement. Only on compromise between the parties, the award can be made and if the parties does not arrive to a compromise or settlement, the Lok Adalat is bound to remit back the matter before the Court..."

Withdrawal of Prosecution Requires Court's Adjudicatory Consent

The Shyam Bacchani judgment further examined Section 321 Cr.P.C., which allows a Public Prosecutor to withdraw from prosecution "with the consent of the Court." The Court emphasized:

"Evidently, the withdrawal of prosecution is not a unilateral exercise of power by the Public Prosecutor rather it is subject to consent of the Court, therefore application of mind and adjudication whether such prayer of prosecution is fit to be allowed is within domain of the Court."

Based on this, the Shyam Bacchani court had held:

"A perusal of the entire scheme under Chapter VI (supra) as well as the referred provisions aforesaid would make it clear that the Lok Adalats have no adjudicatory power and by allowing the prayer of learned Public Prosecutor to withdraw prosecution, the Lok Adalat has exercised adjudicatory jurisdiction which is not vested in it."

Court's Decision and Directions in the Present Case

Adopting the reasoning from Shyam Bacchani , the High Court allowed the present criminal writ petition. The key directives were: 1. The impugned order dated 11.02.2023, passed by the National Lok Adalat Bench No. 2, Neem Ka Thana, District Sikar , was quashed and set aside. 2. The criminal matter (Criminal Case No. 402/2019) was ordered to be restored before the competent Court. 3. The parties are at liberty to proceed according to law. 4. Crucially, the prosecution was granted liberty to file a fresh application under Section 321 Cr.P.C. for withdrawal of the prosecution before the concerned competent court , which would then decide the application strictly in accordance with the law.

Implications of the Judgment

This judgment reinforces the distinct roles of Lok Adalats and regular courts. It clarifies that while Lok Adalats play a vital role in dispute resolution through conciliation and settlement, they cannot usurp the adjudicatory functions reserved for courts. Permitting the withdrawal of a criminal case under Section 321 Cr.P.C. involves a judicial application of mind and consideration of various factors, which falls outside the settlement-focused mandate of Lok Adalats. The ruling also underscores the importance of affording a hearing to the complainant, upholding the principles of natural justice, before any decision on withdrawal of prosecution is made.