DATE: 06/10/2025
COURT: High Court of Allahabad
BENCH: Justice Anish Kumar Gupta
FACTS:
The applicant, Rajeev Jain, filed a
complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, against
the opposite party, Brahm Kumar, before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Etah.
The case was listed for arguments on summoning after the complainant’s
statement had been recorded under Sections 200 and 202 Cr.P.C. The matter was
adjourned multiple times due to the complainant’s absence and the Presiding
Officer’s leave. Subsequently, without any consent or prior intimation to the
complainant, the case was taken up on 09.12.2017 in the Lok Adalat, where it
was dismissed under Section 203 Cr.P.C. for want of prosecution. The
complainant contended that such dismissal by the Lok Adalat was illegal since
the matter had been referred without his consent, contrary to the provisions of
the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987.
The applicant thereafter filed a revision
petition before the Sessions Court, which was dismissed, prompting him to
approach the High Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking quashing of both the
Lok Adalat’s order dated 09.12.2017 and the revisional order dated 23.10.2019.
The applicant argued that the Lok Adalat could not dismiss a complaint for
non-appearance and that it could only dispose of a case based on compromise or
return it to the main court if no settlement was reached. The State’s counsel
supported this view, submitting that the referral to Lok Adalat without consent
and its dismissal for want of prosecution were contrary to law.
ISSUES:
The central issue before the Court was
whether a Lok Adalat has the authority to dismiss a pending complaint case for
non-appearance of the complainant when the matter has been referred to it
without the consent of the parties and without following the due procedure
prescribed under Sections 19 and 20 of the Legal Services Authorities Act,
1987.
JUDGEMENT WITH REASONING:
The Allahabad High Court held that the
order dated 09.12.2017 passed by the Lok Adalat dismissing the complaint under
Section 203 Cr.P.C. was legally unsustainable. The Court quashed the impugned
order as well as the revisional order, remitting the matter back to the Chief
Judicial Magistrate, Etah, to proceed with the complaint from the stage it was
before being referred to the Lok Adalat. Additionally, the Court directed that
a warning be issued to the concerned Judicial Officer for acting beyond his authority
in disposing of the case through the Lok Adalat in contravention of statutory
provisions.
The Court observed that under Sections
19(5) and 20 of the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987, a Lok Adalat has
limited jurisdiction, its role is confined to facilitating compromise or
settlement between the parties in cases that are either pending before a court
or fall within its jurisdiction. Importantly, a matter can be referred to the
Lok Adalat only with the consent of both parties or upon an application by one
of them, after providing the other an opportunity to be heard. The Lok Adalat
is not empowered to adjudicate cases on merits or to dismiss them for default
of appearance. If no settlement is achieved, the Lok Adalat must return the
case to the referring court for further proceedings in accordance with law.
Applying these provisions to the present
case, the Court noted that the complaint under Section 138 of the NI Act had
been referred to the Lok Adalat without the consent of either party and without
any formal application or intimation to the complainant. The Lok Adalat’s
dismissal of the complaint for want of prosecution, therefore, was contrary to
the express statutory procedure. The High Court emphasized that the Lok Adalat
cannot exercise judicial powers to decide or dismiss cases but only acts as a conciliatory
forum to promote settlements. Since the complainant had not consented to the
reference and no compromise had been reached, the Lok Adalat was duty-bound to
return the case to the trial court. The High Court found the judicial officer’s
action in dismissing the complaint to be an irresponsible departure from legal
procedure and issued a formal warning to prevent similar occurrences in the
future.
ANALYSIS:
This case underscores the fundamental
principle that the Lok Adalat functions as a conciliatory body and not as a
judicial forum empowered to adjudicate disputes or dismiss cases on merits. The
Allahabad High Court reaffirmed that the jurisdiction of the Lok Adalat is
limited to facilitating settlements between consenting parties under Sections
19 and 20 of the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987. By dismissing the
complaint for non-appearance, the Lok Adalat exceeded its authority and
violated the statutory mandate requiring either party consent or a formal
application before referral. The judgment highlights the procedural safeguards
embedded in the Act specifically, the requirement of consent and the duty to
remit unresolved matters back to the referring court, which are crucial to
ensuring fairness and preventing arbitrary disposals in the name of speedy
justice.
The Court’s decision also serves as a
cautionary precedent for judicial officers to strictly adhere to the procedural
boundaries of Lok Adalat proceedings. The issuance of a warning to the
concerned officer reflects the Court’s concern about the misuse of Lok Adalat
mechanisms for mechanical disposals without compliance with statutory
provisions. By quashing the impugned order and directing the case to continue
from the pre-reference stage, the High Court reinforced the sanctity of due
process and the principle that expediency cannot override legality. The ruling,
therefore, not only rectifies a miscarriage of procedure in the individual case
but also reiterates broader judicial discipline in the operation of alternative
dispute resolution forums in India.
info@adhwaitha.com