Rajasthan High Court

Shyam Bacchani S/O Shankarlal ... vs State Of Rajasthan on 1 March, 2023

Bench: Birendra Kumar

                                         REPORTABLE
       HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
                   BENCH AT JAIPUR

             S.B. Criminal Writ Petition No. 365/2023

Shyam Bacchani S/o Shankarlal Bacchani, Aged About 51 Years,
R/o Villa No.80, Royal Celebrity Jaisinghpura, Bhankrota Jaipur
Rajasthan.
                                                                   ----Petitioner
                                   Versus
1.     State Of Rajasthan, Through P.p.
2.     Vikas Bodani S/o Motilal, R/o Villa No.82, Royal Celebrity
       Jaisinghpura, Bhankrota, Jaipur Rajasthan.
3.     Kavita Bodani W/o Vikas Bodani, R/o Villa No.82, Royal
       Celebrity Jaisinghpura, Bhankrota, Jaipur Rajasthan.
                                                                ----Respondents

For Petitioner(s) : Petitioner present in person For Respondent(s) : Mr. Atul Sharma, Dy.GA

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BIRENDRA KUMAR

Order

01/03/2023

1. Heard the petitioner in person as well as learned Public

Prosecutor for the State.

2. The question raised in this petition under Article 226 of the

Constitution of India is whether the Lok Adalats under Chapter VI

of the Legal Services Authority Act, 1987 have adjudicatory power

or are required to pass awards only on consensus of the parties.

3. By the impugned order dated 14.05.2022, a Bench of the

Lok Adalat, Jaipur has allowed the Assistant Public Prosecutor to

withdraw the criminal prosecution arising out of FIR No.537/2018

corresponding to Criminal Case No.13/2019 and discharged the

accused from offences under Sections 323 and 341 of IPC.

                                      (2 of 6)                    [CRLW-365/2023]



4.   The impugned order reads as under:-


           "lgk;d       vfHk;kstu vf/kdkjh mifLFkrA egkuxj eftLVªsV

Øe 10 t;iqj egkuxj f}rh; esa yafcr i=koyh jk"Vªh; yksd vnkyr esa is'k gqbZA lgk;d vfHk;kstu vf/kdkjh }kjk jkT; ljdkj ds vkns'k Øekad Ik-16¼01½[email protected] fofo/[email protected]`g&[email protected] fnukad 12- 05-2022 dh ikyuk esa izdj.k dks okil fd;s tkus gsrq izkFkZuk i= i`Fkd ls izLrqr fd;k x;kA Ik=koyh dk voyksdu fd;k x;kA lgk;d vfHk;kstu vf/kdkjh izkFkZuk i= ds vk/kkj ij izdj.k okil fd;s tkus dh vuqefr nh tkdj vfHk;qDrx.k fodkl S/o eksrhyky o dfork iRuh fodkl dks vkjksfir vijk/k varxZr /kkjk 323] 341] 34 IPC ds vijk/k ls [email protected]"keqDr fd;k tkrk gSA i=koyh esa dksbZ dk;Zokgh 'ks"k ugha gSA i=koyh QSly 'kqekj gksdj ckn rdehy nkf[ky nQ~rj gksA"

5. The petitioner is informant of FIR No.537/2018 registered

with Police Station Bhankrota, Jaipur (West) for offences under

Sections 323, 341 and 34 of IPC. The FIR discloses dispute

between the two neighbours. After investigation of the case, the

Police submitted charge-sheet for offence under Sections 341 and

323 of IPC.

6. Grievance of the petitioner is that Lok Adalat has no

jurisdiction to allow withdrawal of criminal prosecution. Moreover,

the petitioner was not noticed while passing the impugned order.

Learned counsel contends that the Lok Adalat can dispose of the

cases only on compromise between the parties.

7. Learned State Counsel contends that under Section 321 of

Cr.P.C., the learned Public Prosecutor is competent to withdraw

criminal prosecution specially considering trivial nature of offences

alleged, which is compoundable and bailable.

8. The prayer of Assistant Public Prosecutor for withdrawal of

the prosecution was purportedly under Section 321 of Cr.P.C.

which reads as under:-

(3 of 6) [CRLW-365/2023]

"321. Withdrawal from prosecution.- The Public Prosecutor or Assistant Public Prosecutor in charge of a case may, with the consent of the Court, at any time before the judgment is pronounced, withdraw from the prosecution of any person either generally or in respect of any one or more of the offences for which he is tried;"(emphasis is mine)

9. Evidently, the withdrawal of prosecution is not a unilateral

exercise of power by the Public Prosecutor rather it is subject to

consent of the Court, therefore application of mind and

adjudication whether such prayer of prosecution is fit to be

allowed is within domain of the Court. Now the question to be

considered is whether the Lok Adalats can also exercise identical

power under Chapter VI of the Legal Services Authority Act, 1987.

10. Section 19 and Section 20 under Chapter VI are relevant for

consideration which are reproduced below:-

"[19. Organisation of Lok Adalats.-- (1) Every State Authority or District Authority or the Supreme Court Legal Services Committee or every High Court Legal Services Committee or, as the case may be, Taluk Legal Services Committee may organise Lok Adalats at such intervals and places and for exercising such jurisdiction and for such areas as it thinks fit.

(2) Every Lok Adalat organised for an area shall consist of such number of--

(a) serving or retired judicial officers; and

(b) other persons, of the area as may be specified by the State Authority or the District Authority or the Supreme Court Legal Services Committee or the High Court Legal Services Committee, or as the case may be, the Taluk Legal Services Committee, organising such Lok Adalat.

(3) The experience and qualifications of other persons referred to in clause (b) of sub-section (2) for Lok Adalats organised by the Supreme Court Legal Services Committee shall be such as may be

(4 of 6) [CRLW-365/2023]

prescribed by the Central Government in consultation with the Chief Justice of India.

(4) The experience and qualifications of other persons referred to in clause (b) of sub-section (2) for Lok Adalats other than referred to in sub-section (3) shall be such as may be prescribed by the State Government in consultation with the Chief Justice of the High Court.

(5) A Lok Adalat shall have jurisdiction to determine and to arrive at a compromise or settlement between the parties to a dispute in respect of--

(i) any case pending before; or

(ii) any matter which is falling within the jurisdiction of, and is not brought before, any court for which the Lok Adalat is organised:

Provided that the Lok Adalat shall have no jurisdiction in respect of any case or matter relating to an offence not compoundable under any law.] "[20. Cognizance of cases by Lok Adalats.-- (1) Where in any case referred to in clause (i) of sub- section (5) of section 19--1[20. Cognizance of cases by Lok Adalats.--(1) Where in any case referred to in clause

(i) of sub-section (5) of section 19--"

(i) (a) the parties thereof agree; or

(b) one of the parties thereof makes an application to the court, for referring the case to the Lok Adalat for settlement and if such court is prima facie satisfied that there are chances of such settlement; or

(ii) the court is satisfied that the matter is an appropriate one to be taken cognizance of by the Lok Adalat, the court shall refer the case to the Lok Adalat: Provided that no case shall be referred to the Lok Adalat under sub- clause (b) of clause (i) or clause (ii) by such court except after giving a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the parties. (emphasis is mine) (2) Notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for the time being in force, the Authority or Committee organising the Lok Adalat under sub-section (1) of section 19 may, on receipt of an application from any one of the parties to any matter referred to in clause (ii) of sub- section (5) of section 19 that such matter needs to be determined by a Lok Adalat, refer such matter to the Lok Adalat, for determination: Provided that no matter shall be referred to the Lok Adalat except after giving a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the other party. (emphasis is mine) (3) Where any case is referred to a Lok Adalat under sub- section (1) or where a reference has been made to it under sub-section (2), the Lok Adalat shall proceed to

(5 of 6) [CRLW-365/2023]

dispose of the case or matter and arrive at a compromise or settlement between the parties. (emphasis is mine) (4) Every Lok Adalat shall, while determining any reference before it under this Act, act with utmost expedition to arrive at a compromise or settlement between the parties and shall be guided by the principles of justice, equity, fair play and other legal principles. (emphasis is mine) (5) Where no award is made by the Lok Adalat on the ground that no compromise or settlement could be arrived at between the parties, the record of the case shall be returned by it to the court, from which the reference has been received under sub-section (1) for disposal in accordance with law.

(6) Where no award is made by the Lok Adalat on the ground that no compromise or settlement could be arrived at between the parties, in a matter referred to in sub-section (2), that Lok Adalat shall advice the parties to seek remedy in a court.

(7) Where the record of the case is returned under sub- section (5) to the court, such court shall proceed to deal with such case from the stage which was reached before such reference under sub-section (1).] "

11. A bare perusal of the aforesaid provisions make it abundantly

clear that when a case, pending before the Court (as in the

present case) is referred to the Lok Adalat, the parties thereof

must agree for reference. If one of the parties only makes an

application to the Court for such reference, other party must have

opportunity of hearing before hand for reaching at conclusion by

the Court that the matter is fit one to be referred to the Lok

Adalat.

12. The provisions of sub-section (3), sub-section (4) and sub-

section (5) as well as sub-section (6) of Section 20 referred above

would indicate that the Lok Adalat has to endeavour that the

parties arrive at a compromise and settlement. Only on