C. Y. SOMAYAJULU, J. ( 1 ) THE order dated 20-8-2002 in Crl. MP No. 590 of 2002 passed by the learned Sessions Judge is the subject-matter of this petition. ( 2 ) IN a complaint registered under Section 498-A IPC, petitioner herein moved an application for Anticipatory Bail under section 438 Cr. PC in Crl. MP No. 590 of 2002. The said application was first made over to the Court of 1 st Additional Sessions judge for disposal according to law. ft is stated that the learned 1 st Additional Sessions judge, without passing any orders on the petition, initiated Counselling proceedings between the parties and the de facto complainant. It is stated that since the counselling did not fructify the learned sessions Judge had withdrawn Crl. MP no. 590 of 2002 to his file from the Court of the 1st Additional Sessions Judge and at the time of hearing of the bail petition, the learned Sessions Judge, without disposing the case on merits, by his order dated 28-8-2002 directed the parties to approach Lok Adalat for settlement of their differences. It is that order is that being challenged in this petition. ( 3 ) THE contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioner is that since the offence under Section 498-A IPC is not compoundable, Lok Adalat has no jurisdiction to decide the case and hence the order of the learned Sessions Judge referring the bail petition to Lok Adalat is improper. Heard the learned Public prosecutor. ( 4 ) PROVISO to Section 19 of the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987 specifically lays down that Lok Adalat does not have jurisdiction in respect of cases or matters relating to offences which are not compoundable under any law. Since the offence under Section 498-A IPC is not a compoundable offence, the case ought not to have been referred to Lok Adalat by the learned Sessions Judge. Sessions Court should not refer bail or anticipatory petitions to Lok Adalats, because as per Section 438 cr. PC Anticipatory Bail can be granted only by the Sessions Court or High Court. Therefore, question of Lok Adalat granting anticipatory Bail does not arise. Sessions Court should not refer bail or anticipatory petitions to Lok Adalats, because as per Section 438 cr. PC Anticipatory Bail can be granted only by the Sessions Court or High Court. Therefore, question of Lok Adalat granting anticipatory Bail does not arise. The practice of referring Bail and Anticipatory Bail petitions to Lok Adalat is very strange, and ought not to have been resorted to by the learned Sessions Judge, without keeping" in view that Lok Adalat does not have jurisdiction to entertain cases relating to non-compoundable offences. If parties reach an amicable settlement that may be a ground for granting Anticipatory bail. But, Courts, in view of the specific provisions in Section 19 of the Legal service Authorities Act, should not refer non-compoundable cases to Lok Adalat. The impugned order therefore is set aside and the learned Sessions Judge is directed to dispose of the Anticipatory Bail petition on merits as expeditiously as possible at any rate within three (3) days after receipt of a copy of this order. ( 5 ) IT is stated that the learned Sessions Judge gave a direction to the police not to arrest the petitioners till 24-9-2002. Therefore, till the final disposal of Crl. MP no. 59g of 2002 by the learned Sessions judge, the petitioners shall not be arrested in connection with Crime No. 114 of 2002 of chilakalapudi P. S. ( 6 ) WITH the above direction, the petition is disposed of.