Brief Facts
- Petitioner is an informant in the FIR registered for offences under Sections 323, 341 and 34 of IPC disclosing a dispute between the two neighbours. After investigation of the case, the Police submitted charge-sheet for offence under Sections 341 and 323 of IPC.
- A Bench of the Lok Adalat, Jaipur allowed the application of Assistant Public Prosecutor to withdraw the criminal prosecution and discharged the accused from offences under Sections 323 and 341 of IPC.
- The Petitioner argued that Lok Adalat has no jurisdiction to allow withdrawal of criminal prosecution. Moreover, the Petitioner was not informed/heard while passing the impugned order. It was contended that the Lok Adalat can dispose of the cases only on compromise between the parties.
Issues
- 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?
- Whether the consent of the Trial Court is mandatory for allowing the withdrawal of the any Criminal Case under section 321 of the Cr.P.C.?
- Whether the grant of consent under section 321 of the Cr.P.C. involves adjudication by the Trial Court?
Held
- The High Court quashed the order passed by the Lok Adalat and held that the Lok Adalat cannot permit withdrawal of the Criminal cases on the application made by the Public Prosecutor/APP as the Lok Adalat lacks the adjudicatory powers.
- The withdrawal of prosecution is not a unilateral exercise of power by the Public Prosecutor rather it is subject to consent of the Court.
- A bare perusal of section 19 and 20 of the Legal Services Authority Act, 1987 make it abundantly clear that when a case, pending before the Court (as in the present case) is referred to the Lok Adalat, the parties thereof must agree for reference. If one of the parties only makes an application to the Court for such reference, other party must have opportunity of hearing before hand for reaching at conclusion by the Court that the matter is fit one to be referred to the Lok Adalat.
- The provisions of sub-section (3), sub-section (4) and sub section (5) as well as sub-section (6) of Section 20 referred above would indicate that 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 under sub-section (6) of Section 20 of the Act.
- 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.
Relevant Para No.
9, 11, 12, 13