Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2004 DIGILAW 129 (PNJ)

Nirbhay Singh v. State of Punjab

2004-02-04

VIRENDER SINGH

body2004
JUDGMENT Virender Singh, J. - Nirbhay Singh, the petitioner-herein is the complainant in case FIR No. 110 dated 29.5.2000, under Sections 451/427 Indian Penal Code, registered at police station Sadar, Malerkotla against one Achara Singh son of Kapur Singh. After investigation of the case, the police submitted cancellation report before the concerned Court. Before any order could be passed with regard thereto, it was referred to the Lok Adalat held on 20.4.2000. On that date, the petitioner was not present. However, the Lok Adalat accepted the cancellation report. For reference, the impugned order runs as under : "Present : APP for the State None for the complainant. Complainant did not come present. File perused. The cancellation report is accepted with the observations that the complainant shall be at liberty to file the private complaint under law. A copy of this order coupled with the police file be returned to the police station concerned through the court concerned and the judicial papers be consigned to the record room accordingly". 2. The grouse of the petitioner is that the order dated 20.4.2002 passed by the Lok Adalat is illegal, without jurisdiction, against the principles of natural justice and thus liable to be quashed. 3. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned State counsel. With their assistance I have also gone through the connected papers. 4. Mr. Jain vehemently contends that the Lok Adalat has transgressed its powers and could not pass the order accepting the cancellation report submitted by the prosecution agency in the manner it has been done. He then contends that the Lok Adalat can decide only such cases wherein the matter has been amicably compromised or settled by mutual agreement and in the instant case the petitioner, who had all the legal right to show his protest against the cancellation report, has not even been heard. The impugned order, thus, is thus liable to be quashed. In support of his contentions, he has relied upon a judgment of the Honble Apex Court rendered in Bhagwant Singh v. Commissioner of Police and another (AIR 1985 SC 1285) and also the decision of this Court rendered in Yash Paul v. State of Punjab, 2002(1) RCR(Criminal) 562. The impugned order, thus, is thus liable to be quashed. In support of his contentions, he has relied upon a judgment of the Honble Apex Court rendered in Bhagwant Singh v. Commissioner of Police and another (AIR 1985 SC 1285) and also the decision of this Court rendered in Yash Paul v. State of Punjab, 2002(1) RCR(Criminal) 562. He also relies upon another decision of this Court in Kamla Mehta v. General Manager, Rajasthan Roadways Transport Corporation and another (FAO No. 798 of 1999) decided on 7.11.2001, wherein the action of the Lok Adalat has been disapproved. 5. The learned State counsel has mildly opposed the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner and urges that the impugned order does not call for any interference as it has attained finality. 6. After hearing both sides, I find myself in agreement with the contentions put forth by learned counsel for the petitioner. 7. In Bhagwant Singhs case (supra), their Lordships of the Apex Court have lucidly observed that the person, who has lodged the FIR is entitled to be heard when on the basis of the police report the Magistrate prefers to drop the proceedings instead of taking cognizance of the offence. Reference may also be made to the decision in Union Public Service Commission v. S. Papaiah and others, 1997(4) All India Criminal Law Reporter 183 and Uma Rani v. State of Punjab, 1998(1) RCR(Criminal) 225. 8. It is a settled legal position that if the report submitted by the police after investigation shows that no offence is made out, it is open to the Court to accept the report after hearing the complainant at whose initiation the investigation started. On the other hand, if the Court feels on a perusal of such a report that the alleged offences have been committed by some persons, the Court has the power to ignore the conclusion arrived at by the investigating agency in its final report and in that eventuality, it is again open to the Court to independently apply its mind to the facts emerging therefrom and take cognizance of the offences which appear to it to have been committed. The Court can even order for further investigation. 9. The grouse of the petitioner in the instant case is that he was not present on 20.4.2002 when the impugned order was passed by the Lok Adalat. The Court can even order for further investigation. 9. The grouse of the petitioner in the instant case is that he was not present on 20.4.2002 when the impugned order was passed by the Lok Adalat. This fact otherwise too finds mention in the impugned order itself. The petitioner/complainant thus was not agreeing with the cancellation report. In such a situation, it cannot be said that both the sides have amicably settled the dispute before the Lok Adalat. In Kamla Mehtas case (supra), this Court has held as under :- "----------the Lok Adalats have been conceptualised as agencies wherein matters can be amicably compromised or settled by mutual agreement. These words have been repeatedly used in the statute and if such an agreement cannot be reached, the Lok Adalat must divest itself of the controversy and must itself refer or advise the parties to approach a Court. It is true that the respondent-Corporation has been left with the liberty to file objections but this procedure is unknown to proceedings under the Act and clearly violates the principles of the finality of an award of a Lok Adalat envisaged under Section 21. This is a clear transaction on the powers of the appellate Court." 10. With regard to the facts of the case in hand, I cannot refrain myself, from observing that the Lok Adalat has miserably failed to give even moments thought to the legal implications and complication in resorting to a short cut for the purposes of speedy disposal. This, to say the least, is most unwanted and undesirable. The functions of a Lok Adalat emanate from an amicable settlement of opposing party either on their own or on its pursuation. Nothing of the kind is on record. It appears that the Lok Adalat assumed the trappings of the competent court and rushed to the conclusion depriving the petitioner of his valuable right to being heard in the matter of police report. The relevant law in any case should not have been given a complete go bye. The impugned order of Lok Adalat cannot be supported or justified by any amount of reasoning. The impugned order thus has no substance in it and in my view it is non-existent in the eyes of law and as such cannot attain finality. Therefore, viewed from any angle, the impugned order is liable to be set-aside. 11. The impugned order of Lok Adalat cannot be supported or justified by any amount of reasoning. The impugned order thus has no substance in it and in my view it is non-existent in the eyes of law and as such cannot attain finality. Therefore, viewed from any angle, the impugned order is liable to be set-aside. 11. Consequently, the present petition is allowed. The impugned order dated 20.4.2002 passed by the Lok Adalat is hereby quashed. 12. The petitioner shall now appear before the concerned Court on March 25, 2004 and it shall revive the proceedings of the present case from the stage when the cancellation report was submitted by the prosecution agency and decide the same in accordance with law. Petition allowed.