Allahabad High Court
Kiran Devi vs State Of U.P. And 4 Others on 6 April, 2022
Bench: Saurabh Shyam Shamshery
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
Reserved on - 24.3.2022
Delivered on - 6.4.2022
Court No. - 34
Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 5649 of 2021
Appellant :- Kiran Devi
Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 4 Others
Counsel for Appellant :- Ravindra Prakash Srivastava
Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.
Hon'ble Saurabh Shyam Shamshery,J.
1. The present criminal appeal has been filed to quash the order dated 10.7.2021 passed by Special Judge (SC/ST) Act, Basti arising out of Case rime No.138 of 2020, under Sections 323, 504, 506 IPC and Section 3(1)(r) 3(1)(s) of SC/ST Act, Police Station - Parasrampur, District - Basti.
2. In the present case, appellant - Kiran Devi lodged the First Information Report on 4.5.2020 against respondent no.2 to 5 allegedly for commission of an offence under Sections 323, 504, 506 IPC and Section 3(1)(r), 3(1)(s) of Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (hereinafter referred as to 'the Act of 1989'). Thereafter, on the said First Information Report, investigation was conducted and the concerned Investigating Officer forwarded a final report on 16.6.2020, which was submitted before the Court on 17.12.2020 as after investigation, no case was found against respondent no.2 to 5.
3. It appears that a notice was issued to the appellant to appear before the Court for considering of final report submitted by Investigating Officer. A copy of notice is annexed along with this appeal as Annexure No.9 wherein next date is mentioned to be 10.4.2020.
4. Learned counsel for appellant submits that this notice was never served upon appellant and the matter remain pending before the Court concerned, however, this matter was placed before the National Lok Adalat (Permanent Lok Adalat) wherein the impugned order dated 10.7.2021 was passed considering that the notice was already served upon appellant but she opted not to appear and as she failed to oppose the Final Report, it was accepted.
5. Learned counsel has relied upon a judgment passed by the Supreme Court in Vishnu Kumar Tiwari vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Another; 2019 (8) SCC 27 that before acceptance of a Final Report, notice to informant and to grant opportunity of being heard is mandatory, which is not followed in the present case. Therefore, the impugned order is liable to be set aside.
6. Heard learned counsel for parties and perused the record.
7. In the present case, after investigation, a final report was submitted and the concerned Court had issued notice to the appellant to appear before the Court concerned or to file protest petition, however, notice was not served upon appellant, therefore, a valuable right of appellant (informant) to oppose Final Report was denied.
8. There is other aspect of the case also. The National Lok Adalat is organized under the provisions of Section 19 of Legal Services Authority Act, 1987 and the proviso to Section states "Lok Adalat shall have no jurisdiction in respect of any case or matter relating to an offence not compoundable under any law".
9. In the present case, the offences under the Special Act ('the Act of 1989') are not part of the list of compoundable offences as prescribed under Section 320 Cr.P.C. Therefore, the impugned order is passed without jurisdiction and in this regard, a judgment passed by the Supreme Court in the case of Madhya Pradesh State Legal Services Authority vs. Prateek Jain & Another; 2014 10 SCC 690 is also relevant wherein it is observed that :-
"...........We would be failing in our duty if we do not mention that, of late, there is some criticism as well which, inter alia, relates to the manner in which cases are posted before the Lok Adalats. We have to devise the methods to ensure that faith in the system is maintained as in the holistic terms access to justice is achieved through this system. We, therefore, deprecate this tendency of referring even those matters to the Lok Adalat which have already been settled. This tendency of sending settled matters to the Lok Adalats just to inflate the figures of decision/settlement therein for statistical purposes is not a healthy practice. We are also not oblivious of the criticism from the lawyers, intelligentsia and general public in adopting this kind of methodology for window dressing and showing lucrative outcome of particular Lok Adalats."
10. In view of the above discussion, not only the valuable rights of appellant to be heard before the acceptance of final report as well as the opportunity to file protest petition are denied but the Lok Adalat has passed the impugned order without jurisdiction on a case relating to an offence not compoundable under any law.
11. Accordingly, the impugned order dated 10.7.2021, passed by Special Judge, S.C./S.T. Act, Basti in National Lok Adalat, is set aside and the concerned Court is directed to issue fresh notice to the appellant granting him opportunity to appear before the Court concerned and, if so advice, to file protest petition, before any ordr is passed on Final Report.
13. With the aforesaid directions, the present appeal is allowed.
Order Date :- 6.4.2022
Rishabh
[Saurabh Shyam Shamshery, J.]
