2021 (8) TMI 381 - HC - Indian Laws

Dishonor of Cheque - possibility of amicable settlement - Lok Adalat - stoppage of the proceedings and acquittal of the accused by invoking the provisions of Section 256 of the Code of Criminal Procedure - HELD THAT - The rationale of referring a matter to the Lok Adalat is to explore the possibility of amicable settlement of the dispute between the parties beyond the rigors that apply to regular Court. However, Lok Adalat/National Lok Adalat is not a substitute for a regular Court. The provisions of Section 20 and sub-sections thereof, are expressly clear that in the absence of the matter which stands referred to the Lok Adalat, being settled between the parties by way of a compromise or settlement, the Lok Adalat has to refer back the matter to the Court from which it was sent to the Lok Adalat for the purpose of amicable settlement and the Court has to proceed with the matter from the same stage from which it was sent to the Lok Adalat. Coming to the facts of the present case, after the matter stood referred to the National Lok Adalat by the Court concerned, the endeavour which was to be made by the National Lok Adalat was to have the matter compromised or settled between the parties. But, of course, the compromise could have been arrived at between the parties, if there was meeting of minds - A compromise or settlement cannot be forced upon the parties. In other words, in case one of the parties does not appears before the Lok Adalat where their case stands referred for compromise or settlement, the only inference which can be prudently drawn is that the party is not interested in having the matter compromised. That being the situation, the Lok Adalat has to thereafter proceed by ordering that as the matter could not be settled between the parties, the same is referred back to the court from which it was sent for the purpose of compromise or settlement. However, by no stretch of imagination, the Lok Adalat can confer upon itself the powers of a regular criminal Court and proceed as per the provisions of Section 256 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, as has been done in the present case by the Lok Adalat. The provisions of Section 256 of the Code of Criminal Procedure cannot be exercised by the Lok Adalat. Not only this, the 1987 Act does not confer any power upon the Lok Adalat to dismiss the case in default on account of nonappearance of a complainant or proceed against the respondent side ex parte on the failure of the respondent to appear before the Court. When the case was referred to the Lok Adalat in order to explore the possibility of a compromise between the parties, dismissal of the complaint by the Lok Adalat for want of attendance of the complainant is, but obvious, an act beyond the jurisdiction of the Lok Adalat. As the respondent stands acquitted by way of the impugned order, therefore, the order passed by the Lok Adalat could have been assailed by the present appellant only under the provisions of Section 378(4) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The matter is remanded back to the appropriate Court from which it stood referred to the National Lok Adalat with the direction that the Court shall proceed with the matter, from the stage, from which it was referred to the National Lok Adalat and proceeding with in accordance with law - appeal allowed by way of remand.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Jurisdiction and powers of the National Lok Adalat.
2. Applicability of Section 256 of the Code of Criminal Procedure by the Lok Adalat.
3. Proper procedure to be followed by the Lok Adalat when a complainant is absent.
4. Maintainability of the appeal under Section 378 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Jurisdiction and Powers of the National Lok Adalat:
The judgment elucidates that a Lok Adalat is organized under Chapter VI of the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987. Section 22 of the Act provides that the Lok Adalat shall have the same powers as a civil court under the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, for certain matters such as summoning witnesses, discovery and production of documents, and reception of evidence on affidavits. However, it is emphasized that the Lok Adalat is not a substitute for a regular court and its jurisdiction is limited to facilitating amicable settlements between parties. If no settlement is reached, the Lok Adalat must refer the case back to the court from which it was received.

2. Applicability of Section 256 of the Code of Criminal Procedure by the Lok Adalat:
The judgment asserts that the National Lok Adalat overstepped its jurisdiction by invoking Section 256 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to acquit the accused due to the complainant's absence. The court clarifies that the Lok Adalat does not possess the powers of a regular criminal court to dismiss a case or acquit an accused under Section 256 Cr.P.C. The Lok Adalat's role is limited to facilitating settlements, and if no settlement is achieved, it must return the case to the referring court.

3. Proper Procedure to be Followed by the Lok Adalat When a Complainant is Absent:
The court highlights that the absence of a complainant at a Lok Adalat session should not result in dismissal of the case or acquittal of the accused. Instead, the Lok Adalat should note the absence and refer the case back to the original court. The judgment references the Supreme Court's rulings in *Associated Cement Co. Ltd. vs. Keshvanand* and *Mohd. Azeem vs. A. Venkatesh and another*, which emphasize that a single absence of the complainant does not justify dismissal of the complaint or acquittal of the accused. The proper course of action is to adjourn the hearing or proceed with the case if the complainant’s presence is not essential.

4. Maintainability of the Appeal under Section 378 of the Code of Criminal Procedure:
The court dismisses the respondent's argument that the appeal under Section 378 Cr.P.C. is not maintainable. It is clarified that the impugned order by the Lok Adalat, which did not result in a compromise or settlement, cannot be treated as an award or decree. Therefore, the appellant was correct in filing the appeal under Section 378(4) Cr.P.C., as there was no award made by the Lok Adalat.

Conclusion:
The appeal is allowed, and the order dated 14.12.2019 by the National Lok Adalat, which acquitted the accused under Section 256 Cr.P.C., is quashed and set aside. The case is remanded back to the appropriate court to proceed from the stage it was referred to the Lok Adalat. The court reiterates that the Lok Adalat exceeded its jurisdiction and emphasizes the correct procedural approach in such circumstances. Pending miscellaneous applications are disposed of accordingly.