The Rajasthan High Court has dismissed the petitions filed against Lok Adalat's orders that accepted withdrawal applications filed by the petitioner-financial institution, allegedly erroneously, against the secured creditors from whom no recovery was made. The Court opined that there was no justified reason to invoke writ jurisdiction when a remedy under BNSS was available.

The bench of Justice Anand Sharma observed that the legal consequence of the Lok Adalat's order was that the accused in the complaints was acquitted, and once the effect of acquittal was there, the petitioner could not bypass the remedy against acquittal under BNSS to directly approach the Court by filing writ petition.

For context, the petitioner-financial institution had granted secured loans to many people against which cheques were collected. When the cheques were dishonoured, complaints were filed in which the trial court took cognizance.

In the meanwhile, Lok Adalat was organized and since in many cases, compromise had taken place and money was recovered, applications were filed for withdrawal. However, as submitted by the petitioner, owing to a clerical mistake, many cases in which no recovery was made were also added in this list, and the Lok Adalar accepted the application for withdrawal.

Hence, the present petition was filed seeking quashing of Lok Adalat's order of withdrawal in relation to such complaints in which no recovery was made.

After hearing the contentions, the Court perused Section 280, BNSS, that provided for complainant's right to file an application to withdraw the complaint at any time before the final order was passed, and in such cases of withdrawal, the accused was treated as acquitted.

In this light, the Court observed,

“…the legal consequence of order dated 09.05.2026 passed by National Lok Adalat is that the accused impleaded in the complaints in question have acquired status of acquittal in the complaint. Once the effect of acquittal is there, the petitioner cannot directly approach this Court by way of filing writ petition either under Articles 226 or 227 of the Constitution of India. Since, the petitioner has got remedy under the provisions of BNSS even against order of acquittal, therefore, no justified reason has come forward on behalf of the petitioner to bypass such remedy under BNSS and to directly approach this Court.”

The Court held that even though the reasons of erroneous withdrawal might be genuine, the Court could not make any comments on merits and the same had to be examined by the competent court, where the remedy against acquittal order was available.

Accordingly, the petitions were dismissed.