ORAL JUDGMENT: (per the HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE D.S.R.VARMA) This matter is before us, on a comprehensive reference by a learned single Judge of this Court, from which the following issues can be made out. (1) . Whether the Lok Adalat can be equated to 'Court' referred to sub- section (2) of Section 320 Cr.P.C.? (2) . Whether an offence which is exclusively triable by a Court of Sessions, though at the stage of P.R.C., can be compounded by a Court presided over by a Magistrate; even assuming that the answer to the first issue is in affirmative? 2. The facts, in brief, that led to the present reference, by the learned Single Judge, for better appreciation, are extracted hereunder: - Accused was charge sheeted for the offence punishable under Section 354 of the Indian Penal Code (fore brevity "I.P.C.,") and the same was numbered as P.R.C.No.40 of 2001 on the file of Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Kadiri, and was pending. At that stage, at the instance of one of the parties, the matter had been referred to Lok Adalat, where the matter was compromised and accordingly, an award was passed recording the compromise. 3. Thereupon, the State, represented by learned Public Prosecutor, filed the present Criminal Revision Case challenging the award, dated 21.07.2001, passed by the Lok Adalat, in the said P.R.C.No.40 of 2001, on the file of Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Kadiri, on the following grounds; Firstly; the offence under Section 354 I.P.C., is triable by Court of Sessions and the learned Magistrate has no jurisdiction to record the order of acquittal under Section 320 (8) Cr.P.C; and Secondly; the Magistrate ought to have forwarded the order passed by the Lok Adalat and the case papers to the Court, which has got jurisdiction, for recording acquittal. 4. Upon these grounds being raised in the Criminal Revision Case, the learned Single Judge, having heard the matter, formulated the above two issues, in a comprehensive manner, for determination by a Division Bench, to have an authoritative pronouncement. Thus, the present Criminal Revision Case is before us. 5. ISSUE NO.1:- So far as this first issue is concerned, for better appreciation, we have to look into the provisions of The Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987, as amended by Act, 59 of 1994 and Act, 37 of 2002 (for brevity 'the Act'). 6. Thus, the present Criminal Revision Case is before us. 5. ISSUE NO.1:- So far as this first issue is concerned, for better appreciation, we have to look into the provisions of The Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987, as amended by Act, 59 of 1994 and Act, 37 of 2002 (for brevity 'the Act'). 6. In Section 2 (aaa) of the Act, 'Court' is defined as a civil, criminal or revenue court and includes any tribunal or any other authority constituted under any law for the time being in force, to exercise judicial or quasi- judicial functions. 7. For the sake of convenience and ready reference, it is apt to extract Section 2 of the Act, to the extent relevant, which is thus: "2. Definitions:-- (1).................. (a).................... (aa)................... (aaa) "Court" means a civil, criminal or revenue court and includes any tribunal or any other authority constituted under any law for the time being in force, to exercise judicial or quasi-judicial functions; (b)................... (bb)................. (c).................... 8. The expression 'Lok Adalat' is defined under Chapter VI of the Act, which deals with the organization of Lok Adalats, cognizance of cases, awards and powers of Lok Adalat or Permanent Lok Adalat. 9. Here, it is necessary to look into Section 22 of the Act, which deals with the powers of 'Lok Adalat' or 'Permanent Lok Adalat', which reads thus: - "Powers of Lok Adalat or Permanent Lok Adalat: - The Lok Adalat or Permanent Lok Adalat shall, for the purposes of holding any determination under this Act, have the same powers as are vested in a Civil Court under the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (5 of 1908), while trying a suit in respect of the following matters, namely: - (a) the summoning and enforcing the attendance of any witness and examining him on oath; (b) the discovery and production of any document; (c) the reception of evidence on affidavits; (d) the requisitioning of any public record or document or copy of such record or document from any court or office; and (e) such other matters as may be prescribed. (2) Without prejudice to the generality of the powers contained in sub-section (1), every Lok Adalat or Permanent Lok Adalat shall have the requisite powers to specify its own procedure for the determination of any dispute coming before it. (2) Without prejudice to the generality of the powers contained in sub-section (1), every Lok Adalat or Permanent Lok Adalat shall have the requisite powers to specify its own procedure for the determination of any dispute coming before it. (3) All proceedings before a Lok Adalat or Permanent Lok Adalat shall be deemed to be judicial proceedings within the meaning of Sections 193, 219 and 228 of the Indian Penal Code (Act No.45 of 1860) and every Lok Adalat or Permanent Lok Adalat shall be deemed to be a Civil Court for the purpose of Section 195 and Chapter XXVI of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Act No.2 of 1974)." 10. From the above, it is obvious that Lok Adalats have a limited jurisdiction and can act as a 'Court' only in the circumstances mentioned under Section 22 of the Act. It does not indicate either explicitly or impliedly that Lok Adalat has all the trappings of a Court. Only for the limited purposes, as mentioned in Section-22 of the Act, it has been vested with the powers of a regular Court. 11. Further, whenever there is any amount of ambiguity or doubt, as the case may be, it is always expedient to look into the Statement of Objects and Reasons of the Enactment. 12. It can be gathered from the said Statement of Objects and Reasons that the system of Lok Adalat is an innovative mechanism for Alternate Disputes Resolution (for brevity 'ADR mechanism') in order to provide effective resolution of the disputes in a spirit of conciliation outside the Court. The said expression 'outside the Court' employed in the Statement of Objects and Reasons of the Act denotes that "Court is a regular statutory institution where the process of adjudication of the disputes between the litigating parties would be undertaken and such disputes would have logical end (emphasis supplied). 13. The said expression further indicates that Lok Adalat is an innovative mechanism in the context of number of cases pending before various Courts and the time being consumed by the Courts for disposal, as such, it is imperative to go for ADR mechanism, whereby the disputes between the parties can be resolved by way of compromise also. 13. The said expression further indicates that Lok Adalat is an innovative mechanism in the context of number of cases pending before various Courts and the time being consumed by the Courts for disposal, as such, it is imperative to go for ADR mechanism, whereby the disputes between the parties can be resolved by way of compromise also. In a way, the said ADR mechanism would advocate and promote the essentiality of resolution of the disputes among the parties by different ways viz., conciliation, mediation, arbitration etc., and the Lok Adalat is a forum that can be organized by the intervention of the judiciary or at the instance of the non-governmental organizations or any other body, which is keen in settling the disputes in an amicable manner. 14. Therefore, the objects of the Enactment are chiefly two in number - firstly, to have the disputes settled by way of resorting to ADR mechanism in a Lok Adalat and secondly, to see that amity and peace prevails among the people, and that apart, to dissuade the parties from approaching the Court of law, which costs the time and money not only of the Court but also of the litigating parties. 15. It is to be further seen that Lok Adalats, constituted and organized under the Act, are not guided by the procedures prescribed either by the Code of Civil Procedure or by the Code of Criminal Procedure. There is no express provision to that effect. The Lok Adalats have the powers only to the limited extent, as pointed out earlier, under Section 22 of the Act, and those powers by themselves would not convert or designate the Lok Adalat as a "Court". 16. It is to be further noticed that Lok Adalats have the power to decide pre-litigation case also i.e., even before the dispute is brought before any Court. A party to the dispute may make an application to the permanent Lok Adalat for settlement of the dispute, which procedure is not available to a regular Court. 17. Though the settlement of dispute is by Lok Adalat, after referring the same to Lok Adalat for settlement, at the instance of either of the parties to the dispute or by the Court, the same is to be treated as a judicial settlement. 18. 17. Though the settlement of dispute is by Lok Adalat, after referring the same to Lok Adalat for settlement, at the instance of either of the parties to the dispute or by the Court, the same is to be treated as a judicial settlement. 18. In this context, it is also pertinent to read Section 89 C.P.C., which deals with settlement of disputes outside the Court. It is noteworthy to see that specifically 'outside the Court' is the expression used expressly. Under this Section, subject to the satisfaction of the Court, the Court may formulate the terms of the possible settlement and refer the same for (a) arbitration, (b) conciliation, (c) judicial settlement, including settlement through Lok Adalat or (d) mediation. 19. Further, clause-c of sub-section (2) of Section 89 C.P.C., postulates that for a judicial settlement, it is necessary for the Court to refer the matter to a suitable institution or person and such institution or person shall be deemed to be a Lok Adalat, constituted under the Act. 20. This makes a clear distinction between 'Lok Adalat' and "Court'. 21. The dateline between the Lok Adalat and the Court is adjudication. In a regular Court, the matters will be adjudicated after taking into consideration the stands taken by both the parties, the evidence on record and also the merits. It has also got the power to record compromise and a decree in that regard can also be passed, as contemplated under Order-23 Rule-3 C.P.C. 22. Nevertheless, the regular Court will not decide the matter by way of conciliation or mediation etc., invoking the ADR mechanism by itself. As already pointed out, the Court has the power only to refer the matter for resolution outside the Court under the above said identified modes of settlement. 23. Whereas in a Lok Adalat, the parties would be advised or counseled or any other efficacious method would be chosen to reconcile the parties to arrive at an amicable settlement and thereby pass an award. 24. As postulated under Section 89 C.P.C., only in case where there is no settlement by any one of the methods under ADR mechanism, the same would be sent back to the Court for adjudication. Therefore, we are of the view that it is the power of adjudication vested with the Court that draws a line between 'Court' and 'Lok Adalat'. As postulated under Section 89 C.P.C., only in case where there is no settlement by any one of the methods under ADR mechanism, the same would be sent back to the Court for adjudication. Therefore, we are of the view that it is the power of adjudication vested with the Court that draws a line between 'Court' and 'Lok Adalat'. Obviously, in a Lok Adalat, adjudication will not be there for the simple reason that Lok Adalat is meant for resolving the dispute by way of invoking any one of the suitable modes under ADR mechanism. 25. For the sake of convenience and ready reference, it is apt to extract sub-section (5) of Section 19 of the Act, which is relevant, is thus: - "(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; or (ii) any matter which is falling within the jurisdiction and is not brought before, any Court for which the Lok Adalat is organized. 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." 26. From the above, it is obvious that there is no distinction between a criminal and civil case to refer the same to Lok Adalat. 27. In other words, any case, whichever is pending before a regular Court, can be referred to Lok Adalat, which includes a matter regarding the offence punishable under the provisions of I.P.C., also, however, only those cases, which are expressly mentioned in the table appended to Section 320 Cr.P.C. 28. Therefore, from the above, certain disputes, as contemplated under Section 89 C.P.C., and any matter, pending before the criminal Court with regard to certain offences, which are mentioned specifically under Section 320 Cr.P.C., can be referred to Lok Adalat and be decided by way of invoking any one of the identified methods under ADR mechanism. Hence, we are of the opinion that Lok Adalat is not a Court as referred to in sub-section 2 of Section 320 Cr.P.C., which deals with the powers of the Court in according permission for compounding the offence by the persons mentioned in Column No.3 of the table appended thereto. 29. Hence, we are of the opinion that Lok Adalat is not a Court as referred to in sub-section 2 of Section 320 Cr.P.C., which deals with the powers of the Court in according permission for compounding the offence by the persons mentioned in Column No.3 of the table appended thereto. 29. In other words, "Lok Adalat" cannot be equated to "Court", referred to in sub-section (2) of Section 320 Cr.P.C., for all the offences covered by I.P.C., except those expressly mentioned in the table appended to Section 320 Cr.P.C. 30. Therefore and from the above, inasmuch as, Section 354 I.P.C., is included in the list of offences, mentioned in the table appended to sub-section (2) of Section 320 Cr.P.C., the same can be permitted to be compounded by the parties, of course, with the permission of the Court. 31. From the very language of sub-section (1) of Section 320 Cr.P.C., it is obvious that the offences under the Sections of I.P.C., specified in the first two columns of the table next following may, with the permission of the Court before which any prosecution for such offences is pending, be compounded by the persons mentioned in the third column of that table. Whereas sub-section (2) of Section 320 Cr.P.C., makes it imperative that the Court should satisfy itself with the said composition and grant permission. 32. It is further apt to refer sub-section (8) of Section 320 Cr.P.C., for the sake of convenience and ready reference, which is thus: - "(8) The composition of an offence under this section shall have the effect of an acquittal of the accused with whom the offence has been compounded." 33. Therefore, a combined reading of sub-sections (2) and (8) of Section 320 Cr.P.C., makes it abundantly clear that it is imperative for the parties to have the matter compounded only with the permission of the Court. Accordingly, the first issue is answered. 34. Therefore, a combined reading of sub-sections (2) and (8) of Section 320 Cr.P.C., makes it abundantly clear that it is imperative for the parties to have the matter compounded only with the permission of the Court. Accordingly, the first issue is answered. 34. ISSUE No.2: - So far as this second issue is concerned, it is to be seen that, no doubt, an offence under Section 354 I.P.C., is exclusively triable by the Court of Session, but Section 354 I.P.C., is a parliamentary legislation, which reads as under: - "Assault or criminal force to woman with intent to outrage her modesty- Whoever assaults or uses criminal force to any woman, intending to outrage or knowing it to be likely that he will thereby outrage her modesty, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine, or with both." 35. An amendment (vide Act 6 of 1991) was brought to the said Section, by the State of Andhra Pradesh, prescribing minimum sentence of five years, which can be extended to seven years. However, the same can be reduced to two years after recording adequate and special reasons in the judgment. 36. Now, a look into the table appended to sub-section (2) of Section 320 Cr.P.C., wherein it is indicated that Section 354 I.P.C., may be compounded by a woman assaulted, to whom the criminal force was used, with the permission of the Court. 37. The Courts cannot say that the amendment made to Section 354 I.P.C., by the Legislature, is by oversight and in a hasty manner and failed to take out Section 354 I.P.C., from the purview of Section 320 (2) Cr.P.C. The minimum punishment extends to seven years imprisonment for certain other offences coming under the purview of Section 320 (2) Cr.P.C. It cannot be said that the said offence does not come under the compoundable offence, as long as Section 354 I.P.C., is shown as a compoundable offence with the permission of Court, at the instance of victim woman, simply because the offence under Section 354 I.P.C., has been amended fixing the minimum punishment as imprisonment for five years. 38. 38. When a compromise has been entered into by both the complainant and the accused and are willing to compound the offence, which is compoundable as per Section 320 Cr.P.C., the Court need not shun the responsibility to compound the offence because there is nothing in Section 320 Cr.P.C., to show that compounding can be done only in certain cases i.e., after completion of investigation, filing of charge sheet etc. 39. If the Court feels that permission for compounding can be accorded, it can give the permission even when the charge sheet is not filed and the case is still under investigation. If the offence, which requires permission of the Court to do so, is to be compounded, the Court can examine the case and decide whether or not to accord permission to compound. If the Court finds that the person, with whose consent the offence can be compounded, has actually given the consent for compounding, it can compound the offence even when it is at the stage of investigation. 40. This Court, in BANDARU NAGESWARA RAO AND KOYA vs. NEELAM VENKATESWARA RAO AND THEENU (1997-ALT (Crl) 2-938, 1997 (TLS) 424422), while dealing with the aspect "whether the cases under Section 354 I.P.C., can be compounded or not," held as under: "........... It is not for the Courts to say that the Legislature made the amendment to Section 354 IPC in a hasty manner and that by oversight, failed to take out Section 354 IPC from the purview of Section 320 (2) Cr.P.C. There are certain other offences where minimum punishment extends to seven years imprisonment coming under the purview of Section 320 (2) Cr.P.C. As long as Section 354 IPC is shown as a compoundable offence with the permission of the Court at the instance of the victim woman, it is not for the Assistant Sessions Judge to say that the said offence does not come under the compoundable offence simply because the offence under Section 354 IPC has been amended fixing the minimum punishment as imprisonment for five years.........." 41. So also, in KOMALLAPLLI RAMA VENKATA DANDAPANI vs. STATE OF A.P. THROUGH S.H.O. NARSAPUR TOWN P.S (2004-ALT-1-605, 2004-ALT (Crl)-2-532, 2004 (TLS) 409868), this Court, while dealing with the same aspect, held as under: "When both the complainant and the accused have entered into a compromise and are willing to compound the offence which is compoundable as per Section 320 Cr.P.C., merely because the charge sheet is not filed, the Court need not shirk the responsibility to compound the offence because there is nothing in Section 320 Cr.P.C., to show that compounding can be done only after filing of charge sheet. If the offence, which requires permission of the Court to do so, is to be compounded, the Court can examine the case and decide whether or not to accord permission to compound. If it feels that permission for compounding can be accorded, it can give the permission even when the charge sheet is not filed and the case is still under investigation. If the offence intended to be compounded does not require permission of the Court and if the Court finds that the person with whose consent the offence can be compounded has actually give the consent for compounding, it can compound the offences even when it is at the stage of investigation................." 42. As already noticed, Section 354 I.P.C., was subjected to amendment by the State of Andhra Pradesh making the offence as the one exclusively triable by the Court of Session, but not the Magistrate, as was originally legislated by the Parliament. This amendment was brought out by the State of Andhra Pradesh by Act 6 of 1991. Therefore, legally the amendment was made applicable insofar as Section 354 I.P.C., in the State of Andhra Pradesh. 43. But, it is conspicuous to note that no corresponding amendment, or an amendment, in any manner, was made to sub-section (2) of Section 320 Cr.P.C. Therefore, notwithstanding the amendment made to Section 354 I.P.C., by the State of Andhra Pradesh, making the said offence as exclusively triable by the Court of Session, so long as that offence is recognized as a compoundable offence, as provided under sub-section (2) of Section 320 Cr.P.C, it is to be held that though the offence under Section 354 I.P.C., is triable by the Court of Session, same is amenable for composition, as postulated under sub-section (2) of Section 320 Cr.P.C. 44. In other words, the amendment brought out to Section 354 I.P.C., by the State of Andhra Pradesh does not have any bearing so long as an offence is allowed to be in the list of offences in the table appended to sub-section (2) of Section 320 Cr.P.C. 45. Therefore, nature of offence, period of sentence of imprisonment or case to be tried exclusively by the Court of Session does not have any bearing on the jurisdiction exercisable under Section 320 Cr.P.C. triable neither the nature of offence nor the jurisdiction of the Court to try an offence would depend upon and subjected to Section 320 Cr.P.C., for the purpose of composition of the offence. 46. The amendment by the State of Andhra Pradesh to Section 354 I.P.C. would not, in any way, alter its status in terms of the same being compounded, however, only with the permission of the Court, as postulated under sub-section (2) of Section 320 Cr.P.C. 47. Apropos the issue as to whether the case exclusively triable by a Court of Session can be referred to Lok Adalat, even at the stage of PRC, by the Magistrate concerned, it is to be noted that, as already discussed in the first issue, 'Lok Adalat' is not a 'Court'. On the other hand, it is only an ADR mechanism, which has been created and recognized by the Statute i.e., Act 1987, subject to the limited powers vested with it, as contemplated under Section 22 of the Act. 48. As we already pointed out, clauses (i) and (ii) of sub-section (5) of Section 19 of the Act provides that any case pending before any Court can be referred to Lok Adalat for settlement of the matter. With this explicit provision under law, there cannot be any doubt as regards the power to refer the matter by any Court, at any stage, for amicable settlement 'outside the Court'. 49. It is further obvious that Lok Adalats are being organized at different levels within the State. Therefore, the only thing to be observed is that the Court, which has been dealing with a matter, shall have the power to refer the same to Lok Adalat of that jurisdiction. 50. Accordingly, this second issue is also answered. 51. 49. It is further obvious that Lok Adalats are being organized at different levels within the State. Therefore, the only thing to be observed is that the Court, which has been dealing with a matter, shall have the power to refer the same to Lok Adalat of that jurisdiction. 50. Accordingly, this second issue is also answered. 51. In this context, we feel it necessary to put on record as a word of caution that the competent Courts, which have been dealing with any matter falling within the ambit of Section 320 Cr.P.C., shall have to record composition on an application made by the parties, subject to its satisfaction, instead of sending the matters for reference to Lok Adalat. 52. The Reference is answered accordingly. 53. Since the grounds raised by the learned Public Prosecutor in the revision case have already been answered in this reference and, inasmuch as, nothing more to be added and nothing else remains for adjudication by the learned single Judge, we are inclined to dismiss the revision case. 54. In the result, the criminal revision case stands dismissed.