Judgment : An application for anticipatory bail filed before this court, on reference, was disposed of (“closed”) by the Lok Adalat organized by the High Court Legal Services Committee. Petitioner, therefore, filed another application for anticipatory bail. 2. Hence mainly three important questions arise for consideration in these cases: i) Can an application for anticipatory bail be disposed of by the Lok Adalat? ii) Can the court refer an anticipatory bail application to the lok Adalat? iii) Can a case involving non-bailable offence be referred to the Lok Adalat? 3. Section 19(5) of Legal Services Authorities Act (‘the Act’, for short) deals with jurisdiction of the Lok Adalat. It reads as follows: Section 19. Organization of Lok Adalats .(1) xxxxxxxxx .(2) xxxxxxxxx .(3) xxxxxxxx .(4) xxxxxxxx (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 failing within the jurisdiction of, 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”. 4. Section 20 of the Act relates to the procedure for reference of the case, disposal etc., by Lok Adalat. It reads as follows” “Section 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 if 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 suchcourt excepts after giving a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the parties. .(2) Notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for the time being in force, the Authority or Committee organizing 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 reasonably opportunity of being heard to the other party. .(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 dispose of the case or matter and arrive at a compromise or settlement between the parties. .(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. .(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 advise 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 subsection (1)”. 5. As per section 19(5) of the Act, the jurisdiction of the Lok Adalat is “to determine and to arrive at a compromise or settlement between the parties to a dispute”, in respect of a any case or matter. Subsection (3) of section 20 also lays down that the Lok Adalat shall determine the case or matter referred to it and arrive at a compromise or settlement between the parties. Subsection (3) of section 20 also lays down that the Lok Adalat shall determine the case or matter referred to it and arrive at a compromise or settlement between the parties. 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. Thus, it is clear that the disposal of a “Case” referred to the Lok Adalat must be on the basis of a “compromise” or “settlement” arrived at between the parties to a dispute. The Supreme Court held in State of Punjab v. Ganapati Raj [2006 (8) SCC 364] that if no “compromise” or “settlement” is or could be arrived at, no order can be passed by the Lok Adalat. It was also held that the disposal by Lok Adalat of a writ petition which involved no compromise or settlement was held to be clearly impermissible. It was held in Ganapat Raj’s case as follows: “The specific language used in sub-section (3) of Section 20 makes it clear that the Lok Adalat can dispose of a matter by way of a compromise or settlement between the parties. ………..The case at hand did not involve compromise or settlement and could not have been disposed of by the Lok Adalat. If no compromise or settlement is or could be arrived at, no order can be passed by the Lok Adalat. Therefore, the disposal of Civil Writ petition No.943 of 2000 filed by the respondent is clearly impermissible”. 7. The various provisions contained in the Act also make it clear that the Lok Adalat has no adjudicatory functions. It cannot pass any independent verdict/order/award arrived at by any decision-making process. It can only persuade the parties to the dispute, by any known methods of conciliation, mediation etc., and with utmost expedition, to arrive at a compromise or settlement and determine the case in accordance with the bilateral compromise or settlement arrived at by them. In doing so, it shall be guided by the principles of justice, equity, fair play and other legal principles. 8. In doing so, it shall be guided by the principles of justice, equity, fair play and other legal principles. 8. What is expected of by the Lok Adalat is to incorporate the terms of settlement or compromise arrived at by the parties to the dispute, in the presence of both parties in the form of an Award and under their signature as well as the signature and seal of the judges of the Lok Adalat. It is, in effect, more or less, like a compromise decree. No decision can be taken by the Lok Adalat unilaterally. But, many Lok Adalats are found to issue independent directions and orders, just as the court do, after an independent, adjudicatory process. This is totally contrary to the scheme and scope of the Act and it is impermissible also. 9. TheSupreme Court made this position crystal clear in State of Punjab v. Jalour Singh reported in 2008 (2) SCC 662, as follows: “ It is evident from the said provisions that the Lok Adalats have no adjudicatory or judicial functions. Their functions relate purely to conciliation. A Lok Adalat determines a reference on the basis of a compromise or settlement between the parties at its instance, and puts its seal of confirmation by making an award in terms of the compromise or settlement. When the Lok Adalat is not able to arrive at a settlement or compromise, no award is made and the case record is returned to the court from which the reference was received, for disposal in accordance with law. No lok Adalat has the power to “hear” parties to adjudicate cases as a court does. It discusses the subject-matter with the parties and persuades them to arrive at a just settlement… When the LSA Act refers to “determination” by the Lok Adalat and “award” by the Lok Adalat, the said Act does not contemplate nor require an adjudicatory judicial determination, but a non-adjudicatory determination based on a compromise or settlement, arrived at by the parties, with guidance and assistance from the Lok Adalat. The “award” of the Lok Adalat does not mean any independent verdict or opinion arrived at by any decision-making process. The “award” of the Lok Adalat does not mean any independent verdict or opinion arrived at by any decision-making process. The making of the award is merely an administrative act of incorporating the terms of settlement or compromise agreed by parties in the presence of the Lok Adalat, in the form of an executable order under the signature and seal of the Lok Adalat”. 10. Thus, is evident that even though as per section 19(5) (i) of the Act, a Lok Adalat has jurisdiction over “any case” (except one relating to a non-compoundable offence) pending before a court for which Lok Adalat is organized, it can dispose of a “case”, only if it can arrive at a “compromise” a “settlement” between the parties to a dispute. Therefore, it follows that an anticipatory bail application can be disposed of by a Lok Adalat only if it can be treated as a “case” falling under the Act, and its disposal is possible on the basis of a compromise or settlement. 11. So, the next question is whether an anticipatory bail application is a “case” falling within the purview of the Act. “case” and “court” are defined in section 2(a) and 2(aaa) of the Act. Section 2(a) 2(aaa) of the Act can be extracted as follows: “Section 2. Definitions:- (a) “Case” includes a suit or any proceeding before a court; (aa) xxxxxxxx (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; 12. “Case” includes a suit or any proceeding before a court. “Court” means, a criminal court also, under section 2(a) of the Act. An application for anticipatory bail is a proceeding under section 438 of the code pending before a criminal court and hence, it is a “case” as defined under section 2(a), read with section 2(aaa) of the Act. Now, I shall answer the next question: Can an anticipatory bail application be disposed of on the basis of a “compromise” or “settlement”? An anticipatory bail application is filed under section 438 of the code of criminal procedure code (‘the code, for short). It reads as follows (only the relevant portion is extracted hereunder): “438. Now, I shall answer the next question: Can an anticipatory bail application be disposed of on the basis of a “compromise” or “settlement”? An anticipatory bail application is filed under section 438 of the code of criminal procedure code (‘the code, for short). It reads as follows (only the relevant portion is extracted hereunder): “438. Direction for grant of bail to person apprehending arrest.—(1) When any person has reason to believe that he may be arrested on an accusation of having committed a non-bailable offence, he may apply to the High Court or the Court of Sessions for direction under this section; and that Court may, if it thinks fit, direct that in the event of such arrest, he shall be released on bail. .(2) xxxxx .(3) xxxxx .13. A plain reading of section 438 of the code reveals that the requirements for issuing a direction under the said section are two-fold, viz, i) that there is a reasonable belief that a person may be .arrested and ii) that such apprehension of arrest is on an accusation of having committed a non-bailable offence. But, the mere satisfaction of those two factors alone may not be sufficient to issue a direction under Section 438 of the code. Anticipatory bail cannot be granted in any and every case in which there is apprehension of arrest, on accusation of non-bailable offence. If anticipatory bail has to be granted on the mere satisfaction of the twin conditions in the provision, the other provisions relating to bail may become redundant. 14. Section 438 of the Code is introduced into the statute, not with a view to circumvent the other provisions relating to bail or render such provisions redundant. Even if the requirements under the section 438 of the code are satisfied, the relief under Section 438 of the code can be granted, only if “it thinks fit”. The power under Section 438 of the code is thus, discretionary in nature and the court shall exercise discretion only sparingly and in a judicious manner, in cases where there is an attempt for false implication, or possibility of torture at the police station by an unwarranted arrest and detention by police etc. Therefore, the functions of the court while dealing with a petition under section 438 of the code is adjudicatory in nature. 15. Therefore, the functions of the court while dealing with a petition under section 438 of the code is adjudicatory in nature. 15. A direction under section 438 of the code cannot be issued on the basis of a “compromise” or “settlement” between the parties. Even if the parties come to terms, the court is not bound to grant the relief under section 438 of the code. The court has to exercise it direction; independent of any compromise or settlement reached between the parties for issuing an order in an anticipatory bail application. It cannot also issue an order in an anticipatory bail application, in terms of the compromise reached. An order under section 438 of the code cannot, in short, be issued by incorporating the terms of the compromise or settlement arrived at by the parties. 16. Therefore, it follow that even though an application filed under 438 of the code for anticipatory bail is a “case”, as defined under the Act and even though, a Lok Adalat has jurisdiction to determine “any Case” pending before a court, subject to the restriction under the proviso to section 19(5) of the Act, a Lok Adalat cannot dispose of an anticipatory bail application. This is mainly for the reason that an anticipatory bail application is not a proceeding which is disposable by any such “compromise” or “settlement” whereas, Lok Adalat’s jurisdiction is confined to disposal of cases only on the basis of a “compromise” or “settlement” between the parties. 17. Now, I shall come to the next important question. Can the court refer an anticipatory bail application to the Lok Adalat? On a first blush, the answer may appear to be simple. Because, it may only be reasonable to think on a plain logic why should a case be referred to a particular forum, If it cannot dispose of the case? Normally, such an exercise will be futile. But, on a close reading of the relevant provisions in the Act, it appears to me that an anticipatory bail can be referred to the Lok Adalat. I also find that there is a definite purpose also for such reference. 18. Here are the reason: Section 20 of the Act deals with the procedure for making a reference to the Lok Adalat. Section 20 of the Act lays down that a “case” or a “matter” can be referred to the Lok Adalat. I also find that there is a definite purpose also for such reference. 18. Here are the reason: Section 20 of the Act deals with the procedure for making a reference to the Lok Adalat. Section 20 of the Act lays down that a “case” or a “matter” can be referred to the Lok Adalat. While any “case” pending before the court can be referred to the Lok Adalat under Section 20(1), any “matter” which is not pending before any court can be referred to the Lok Adalat, under Section 20(2). Setion 20(1) lays down under what circumstances a “case” which is pending before a court can be referred to a Lok Adalat for settlement. Such cases which are referable under section 20(1) of the Act fall under section 19(5)(i). .19. As per section 20(1) of the Act, a court can refer any “case” pending before a court to the Lok Adalat under two circumstance: i) on a motion made by the parties either jointly or on an application by any one of the parties to a dispute in respect of a case and ii) suo mottu, by the court. This is evident from section 20(1) read with section 19(5)(i) of the Act. The suo mottu reference is made under section 20(1)(ii) of the Act. As per the said provision, if the court is satisfied that in any case .pending before the court, the “matter” is an appropriate one to be taken cognizance of by the Lok Adalat, it SHALL refer the “case” to the Lok Adalat. 20. Here the expressions, “case” and “Matter” are relevant. The “case” is defined under the Act and I have already dealt under the Act. Going by the Oxford dictionary, “matter” means, “a subject or situation that you must consider or deal with”. Therefore, in a “case” which is pending before a court, if the court finds that a “subject” or situation that the court must consider or deal with”, and if it is an appropriate one to be taken cognizance of by the Lok Adalat. This is MANDATORY under section 20 (1)(ii). 21. In the case at hand, the following facts were brought to the notice of this court, at the time of hearing: the accused and de facto complainant are brothers. There is a “Civil Dispute” pending between them. This is MANDATORY under section 20 (1)(ii). 21. In the case at hand, the following facts were brought to the notice of this court, at the time of hearing: the accused and de facto complainant are brothers. There is a “Civil Dispute” pending between them. This dispute was one of the main causes for the incident in which various offences were committed. If such dispute can be solved or settled at the root, it may be possible to prevent further commission of other offences. If not, it may multiply litigations both civil and criminal and there may not be a permanent solution for their problem, unless the court intervenes and takes appropriate steps to settle the civil dispute. 9.22. This court, on consideration of the issues involved, identified that there is a “MATTER” which is latent in the “case”, which is an appropriate one to be taken cognizance of by the Lok Adalat. Such “matter” is the civil dispute between two brothers relating to a property. It is needless to say that such a dispute can be disposed of by a compromise or settlement. Hence, by virtue of Section 20(1) (ii), the court has no other option than to refer the case for settlement to the lok Adalat. By virtue of the provision contained in section 20(1)(ii) of the Act, there is a mandate that, “case” shall be referred to the Lok Adalat. While referring such a case to the Lok Adalat, the court may either specifically state what the “matter” involved in the case is, or simply refer the case under section 20 (1)(ii) of the Act and leave it to the Lok Adalat to find out by itself, what is the disposable “matter” which is latent in the “case”. 10.23. But, I am confronted with a stalemate here. As per the proviso to section 19(5) of the Act, the Lok Adalat shall have no jurisdiction in respect of any case or matter relating to an offence not compoundable under any law. The offences alleged in this case fall under section 323, 324 and 308 read with 34 of IPC. These include offence under section 308 IPC which is a non-compoundable offence. So, can this court refer the case to the Lok Adalat? Does he proviso to section 19(5) bar reference of the case to the Lok Adalt? I shall answer this question also. 124. These include offence under section 308 IPC which is a non-compoundable offence. So, can this court refer the case to the Lok Adalat? Does he proviso to section 19(5) bar reference of the case to the Lok Adalt? I shall answer this question also. 124. The proviso to section 19(5) lays down that a Lok Adalat shall have no jurisdiction in respect of any case or matter “relating to” an offence not compoundable under any law. The bar under the proviso is not against referring a case “involving” a non-bailable offence but, it is only in disposing of a case or matter “relating to” a non-bailable offence. The peculiar language in the proviso is striking. Instead of saying that there will be a bar in disposing of a case or matter “involving” a non-bailable offence, what is laid down is that a Lok Adalat shall have no jurisdiction in respect of any case or matter “relating to” an offence not compoundable under any law. 125. A civil dispute which is identified as the “matter” in the “case” cannot be said to be ‘relating to’ a non-compoundable offence, for a number of reasons. A civil dispute arises from the assertion and a denial of a civil right and it involves an alleged infringement of civil right. But, an offence is said to be committed when a person does or omits to do an act, which is made punishable by any law in force. Such offence becomes a non-bailable one, if it so made, by any law in force. .26. Apart from this, the act or facts which constitute the offence are totally different from the facts which relate to or which are involved in the civil dispute. While the non-bailable offence ends up in a .conviction and sentence of the offender, the civil dispute terminates in a court by upholding a civil right. Though a civil dispute may be one of the causes for the commission of offence, the nature of remedy which the party may seek in a civil litigation and a criminal prosecution will be different. It cannot therefore, be said that a civil dispute ‘relates to’ or is ‘connected with’ an offence committed. 127. Though a civil dispute may be one of the causes for the commission of offence, the nature of remedy which the party may seek in a civil litigation and a criminal prosecution will be different. It cannot therefore, be said that a civil dispute ‘relates to’ or is ‘connected with’ an offence committed. 127. Hence, there will be no bar in referring a “case” to the Lok Adalat if the court identifies a matter therein which is a civil dispute existing between the parties, even if the “case” involves any non-compoundable offence. There is no blanket-ban under the Act, either in referring a case or matter which “involves” a non-bailable offence for disposal by the Lok Adalat. The bar under the proviso to section 19(5) will apply only in respect of the case or matter ‘relating to’ the non-bailable offence. If the case or matter is not relating to a non-bailable offence, the Lok Adalat shall have jurisdiction to dispose of such a case or matter. For example, it shall not dispose of by “compromise” or “settlement”, the dispute relating to the offence of murder or rape. Whether a murder or rape is committed or not cannot be dealt with by the Lok Adalat. But, even in such cases, in my considered view, there may not be a bar in disposing of a civil dispute existing between the relevant parties or some other dispute or any such similar “MATTER” which is not “relating to” the non-compoundable offence and which the court finds to be an appropriate one to be taken cognizance of by the Lok Adalat. 128. Thus, I sum up: An Anticipatory bail application is a “CASE” falling under the Act, But, it is not disposable by the Lok Adalat. What can be disposed of by the Lok Adalat, on reference of an anticipatory bail application under Section 20(1)(ii) of the Act is, the “MATTER” which is latent in the case and not the anticipatory bail application itself. Even if the court has not specified what such “MATTER” is, while referring a case under Section 20(1)(ii), the Lok Adalat can identify any appropriate matter and dispose of the same. But, it must take care to see that it disposes only the “matter” which it has jurisdiction to dispose of. 129. Even if the court has not specified what such “MATTER” is, while referring a case under Section 20(1)(ii), the Lok Adalat can identify any appropriate matter and dispose of the same. But, it must take care to see that it disposes only the “matter” which it has jurisdiction to dispose of. 129. Therefore, when an anticipatory bail application or any other case is referred to the Lok Adalat under Section 20(1)(i) of the Act, if the court has not specified what the “matter” is, the Lok Adalat shall take effort to identify the “Matter” which is disposable by the Lok Adalat. (in this case, it is specifically mentioned in the order of reference that the matter was civil dispute). Even if any “matter” is indicated/mentioned in the order of reference or not, the Lok Adalat may by itself find out the same, in the course of the conciliation/mediation/settlement talk and such matter shall be disposed of by the Lok Adalat. But, in such cases, the Lok Adalat shall dispose of only such “MATTER” and not the “CASE” itself. 130. It is relevant to state another important fact in this context. The Lok Adalat has taken up the case on file as “B.A.4655/2008” itself. It is the number of the bail application assigned to the case by this court. The Lok Adalat cannot deal with the case under such number and dispose of the same under that number. As per Regulation 38(1) the Kerala State Legal Service Authority Regulations, 1988, (‘the Regulations’, for short) the Secretary of the High Court Legal Services committee shall maintain a register wherein all the cases received by him by way of reference to the LoK Adalat shall be entered giving particulars of the (i) date of receipt; (ii) nature of the case; (iii) such other particulars as may be deemed necessary; and (iv) date of settlement and return of the case file. When the case is finally disposed of by the Lok Adalat, an appropriate entry will be made in the Register, as per clause 2 of Regulation 38. .31. When the case is finally disposed of by the Lok Adalat, an appropriate entry will be made in the Register, as per clause 2 of Regulation 38. .31. It is needless to say that the entries will be made serially in the Register maintained under Regulation 38 referred above and hence, the number of the case disposed of by the Lok Adalat has to be referred to by such serial number and not by the number of the case, which is assigned before the court which refers the “case” or “matter”. In this case, it is doubtful whether such a number is assigned by the Secretary in compliance of Regulation 38(1). If the procedure in Regulation 38 is not .being followed, it is high time that that it is followed by the High Court Legal Services committee, to prevent any confusions in future. 17.32. It is also relevant to note every ‘award’ of the Lok Adalat shall be signed by the parties to the disputes and the panel constituting the Lok Adalat, as per Regulation No.33(1). This is mandatory. But, the so-called “award” passed by the Lok Adalat in this case is unilateral and it is signed only by one of the parties to the dispute. Therefore, on this count also, the award is clearly illegal. If, at least, the mandate under Regulation 33(1) had been followed, the illegality could have been avoided. It is also to be noted that the Lok Adalat ought to have returned the file as stated in section 20(5) of the Act, if the “case” or “matter” could not be settled by “compromise” or “settlement” between the parties. But, this is also not done by the Lok Adalat. Thus, altogether, the entire procedure adopted by the Lok Adalat is illegal and not in tune with the provision contained in the relevant enactments. .33. The Lok Adalat, instead of disposing of the “matter”, disposed of the “case” itself, as per the following order: .“Learned counsel for the petitioners and Public Prosecutor are present. Petitioners’ counsel submits that bail application is not pressed. Accordingly, the matter is closed”. 18.34. For the various reasons already discussed, disposal of an anticipatory bail application by the Lok Adalat is clearly illegal, and without jurisdiction. The Lok Adalat virtually usurped the jurisdiction of this court and disposed of the anticipatory bail application itself. Petitioners’ counsel submits that bail application is not pressed. Accordingly, the matter is closed”. 18.34. For the various reasons already discussed, disposal of an anticipatory bail application by the Lok Adalat is clearly illegal, and without jurisdiction. The Lok Adalat virtually usurped the jurisdiction of this court and disposed of the anticipatory bail application itself. Such disposal can only be nonest in the eye of law and it has only to be ignored. Therefore, the anticipatory bail application which was disposed of by the Lok Adalat is treated as pending before this court. Consequently, the subsequent anticipatory bail application filed by the same accused cannot be entertained, and it is liable to be rejected. 19.35. Before closing, I find that it is pertinent to mention in this context that whenever a case is dealt with by the court, it must take every effort to ensure that the parties get a permanent solution for their problem and that too, within the shortest span of time. This may be possible if the court goes to the root of the matter in every case, and finds out what exactly had led to the particular litigation and ascertains the cause for the disharmony. On identifying such cause, it must see whether it is an appropriate one which can be taken cognizable by the Lok Adalat. If it is such a matter, it SHALL be referred to the Lok Adalat in accordance with section 20(1)(i) or 20(1)(i) of the Act. This may be essential do complete justice to the parties. 20.36. The provisions in the special Act which is under discussion accentuate such need and even mandates that court SHALL refer a “Case” suo motu to the Lok Adalat, if it finds that there is a “matter” which is an appropriate to be dealt with by the Lok Adalat. If the dream of the legislature were to become a reality, in the interest of the benefit of the litigant public, the court shall not deal with matters pending before it in a casual manner, mechanically adopting the ordinary procedure which will be time-consuming to bring a litigation to an end. So, in each and every case, whenever and wherever possible, the court must identify the “matter” which is latent in a “case” and it must act at the very initial stage itself. So, in each and every case, whenever and wherever possible, the court must identify the “matter” which is latent in a “case” and it must act at the very initial stage itself. Any ritualistic method adopted in disposal of a case pending before court will not at any rate, do substantial justice to the cause nor to the vibrant provisions in the special enactments and provisions. .37. In the wake of the relevant provision in the Legal Services Authorities Act and the like, the court shall not be technical in its approach to a litigation. While dealing with cases, courts must take every effort to give a permanent solution to the issues at the earliest stage. If the court looks at every case pending before it with such earnest eyes, it can certainly find out ways and measures to undo a harm or even prevent another and put stop to the breeding of litigations without any delay. In the .case at hand, if the civil dispute between the brothers is not settled, it is likely that there may be retaliations against each other and both civil and criminal litigations may came up. Even if anticipatory bail is granted or rejected, it may not solve the problem permanently. 21.38. There may be situations where a person is harassed by a potential enemy of his father merely because his father is having some dispute with such enemy. If the court finds that such enmity could be the reason for the case, court must take effort to identify the “MATTER” in the case and refer the same, if such dispute is an appropriate one to be taken cognizance of by the Lok Adalat. If this could be done, it may be possible to bring about a permanent solution to the whole issue, at the initial stage itself. This is only one example. The court may come across with many other instances. In such cases, it shall be the duty of the court to identify the appropriate matter and act in accordance with law. 22.39. Now, coming to the merit in the anticipatory bail application, I find that learned counsel for petitioner only submitted that petitioner is innocent of the allegations made and that the entire incident is an off-shoot of a civil dispute and the incident did not occur as alleged. 22.39. Now, coming to the merit in the anticipatory bail application, I find that learned counsel for petitioner only submitted that petitioner is innocent of the allegations made and that the entire incident is an off-shoot of a civil dispute and the incident did not occur as alleged. Learned Public Prosecutor opposed this application and submitted that the offences committed are under sections 323.324 and 308 read with 34 IPC and the case diary reveals that the accused acted in the manner alleged. Considering the manner in which the assault is made, it is not a fit case to grant anticipatory bail, it is submitted. 23.40. Learned Public Prosecutor also pointed out that charge sheet is already filed and, a non-bailable warrant is also issued against petitioner. On hearing both sides on merit of the case, and on going through the case diary I am satisfied that in the nature of allegations made and the stage of the case and the fact that warrant is issued, I find that it is not a fit case to grant anticipatory bail. No special circumstances are pointed out by petitioner to invoke the extraordinary jurisdiction under section 438 of the code. In the result, both petitions are dismissed.