The Allahabad High Court quashed an order passed by a Lok Adalat that dismissed a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 for non-appearance of the complainant. The Court observed that such dismissal was contrary to the provisions of the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987, emphasizing that Lok Adalats cannot dispose of matters on merits without the consent of the parties. The judgment underlined the importance of adherence to statutory procedures and issued a stern caution against unauthorized actions by judicial officers.
The applicant had filed a complaint under Section 138 of the NI Act against the opposite party. The matter was listed for arguments regarding summoning of the accused, but on one occasion the complainant was absent and the Presiding Officer was also on leave. Subsequently, the case was taken up by the Lok Adalat without any consent from the complainant, and the complaint was dismissed for non-prosecution. Aggrieved by this, the applicant approached the High Court seeking quashing of the orders of dismissal.
Counsel for the applicant submitted that the case had been wrongly taken to the Lok Adalat without his consent, and that dismissal for non-appearance was illegal. He relied on Sections 19 and 20 of the Legal Services Authorities Act, which require parties’ consent for referral and mandate returning of cases to the Court if no settlement is reached. The State counsel supported this position, highlighting that matters can only be disposed of by Lok Adalat on compromise or settlement and must otherwise be returned to the court.
The Court noted that Lok Adalats derive jurisdiction to settle disputes only with parties’ consent or on their application, and cannot decide cases on merit in absence of such consent. It highlighted the statutory obligation under Section 20 of the Legal Services Authorities Act that if no settlement occurs, the case must be remitted to the court from which it was referred. In this case, the Lok Adalat acted unilaterally, dismissing the complaint without the complainant’s presence or consent, which was “not sustainable under any canons of law.” The Court expressed serious concern over judicial officers bypassing procedural safeguards and emphasized that such practices amount to unauthorized action warranting caution.
The Court allowed the application, quashing the Lok Adalat order dated 09.12.2017, and directed the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Etah, to proceed with the case from the stage it was improperly referred and dismissed. Additionally, the Court issued a warning to the concerned Judicial Officer to prevent recurrence of such procedural lapses in future.
Case Title: Rajeev Jain Vs. State Of U.P. & Anr.
Case No.: Application U/S 482 No. - 2300 of 2020
Coram: Justice Anish Kumar Gupta
Advocate for Petitioner: Adv. Niklank Kumar Jain
Advocate for Respondent: Adv. G.A., Shashi Kumar Mishra
Read Order @LatestLaws.com
Picture Source :