Lok Adalat Can't Take Up Case Suo-Motu Or Dismiss It For Absence Of Party; Duty To Return Matter If No Settlement: Allahabad High Court

The Allahabad High Court has held that a Lok Adalat has no authority to dismiss a pending complaint for want of prosecution on the mere non-appearance of a party and must, where no compromise or settlement is arrived at, return the case back to the court concerned. A bench of Justice Anish Kumar Gupta also added that a Lok Adalat can't take up the matter on own motion, without obtaining the consent of the parties and without any intimation to the complainant. With this, the bench quashed an order passed by a Lok Adalat on December 9, 2017, dismissing a cheque-bounce complaint for non-appearance of the complainant. It also remitted the matter to the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Etah to decide the case in accordance with law from the stage it was referred and dismissed in Lok Adalat. Importantly, the bench also took exception to the 'irresponsible' action of the judicial officer concerned with Lok Adalat for taking up a Cheque Dishonour matter under the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 on own motion and thereafter, dismissing it on account of absence of the complainant. "The instant case, is the gravest example of such irresponsible and unauthorized action on the part of the judicial officer concerned while taking up the matter in Lok Adalat. Thus, let a warning be issued to the concerned Judicial Officer in this regard so that he may not to repeat such occurrence in future", the bench observed in its order. Briefly put, the petition arose from a complaint under Section 138 NI Act filed by one Rajeev Jain against Brahm Kumar. The complaint had been listed for arguments on summoning of the accused; adjournments were recorded and the matter was ultimately fixed before the regular court for December 13, 2017. However, without the consent of the complainant and without any intimation to him, the file was taken up in a Lok Adalat on December 9, 2017 and the complaint was dismissed under Section 203 CrPC. on the ground that the complainant was not present. Before the HC, the original complainant/petitioner (Jain) that no consent was ever given by him for taking up the matter in Lok Adalat, which was the precondition for referring the matter to the Lok Adalat, At the outset, the High Court, carefully analyzing the statutory scheme, recorded that as per Section 19 and 20 of the Legal Services Authority Act 1987, the matter which is pending before any court and the same is compoundable can be referred to Lok Adalat only either with the consent of the parties or on application of any of the parties, after giving an opportunity of hearing to the other parties. The Court also noted that unless the parties agree and arrive at settlement and compromise, no award can be made by Lok Adalat. "When no award is made as there is no compromise and settlement, Lok Adalat is duty bound to return back the matter to the court concerned from which the matter was referred to the Lok Adalat", the Court further observed. The Court observed that in the present matter, neither party had consented to refer the case to the Lok Adalat; the accused had not even been summoned and no application for reference was on record. "The court on its own motion, without obtaining the consent of the applicant herein and without any intimation to the complainant, taken up the complaint case filed by the applicant herein in the Lok Adalat…and dismissed the case for want of prosecution, without following any of the procedure prescribed under sub-section (5) of Section 19 and Section 20 of the Legal Services Authority Act, 1987", the order recorded. The Court added that even if the matter was taken up in Lok Adalat when the parties were not present, it was not permissible for Lok Adalat to dismiss the case for non-presence of the complainant On that basis the High Court concluded that the Lok Adalat's order was not sustainable under any canons of law. It thus allowed the application under Section 482 CrPC and quashed the Lok Adalat order dated December 9, 2017 and directed that the trial court proceed with the case from the stage it reached before the reference.Case title - Rajeev Jain vs. State Of U.P. And AnrCase Citation : Click Here To Read/Download Order

Lok Adalat Can't Take Up Case Suo-Motu Or Dismiss It For Absence Of Party; Duty To Return Matter If No Settlement: Allahabad High Court

Sparsh Upadhyay

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

Sparsh Upadhyay

Lok Adalat Can't Take Up Case Suo-Motu Or Dismiss It For Absence Of Party; Duty To Return Matter If No Settlement: Allahabad High Court

Sparsh Upadhyay

This is a premium content Available exclusively to Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

Sparsh Upadhyay

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers