Research › Search › Judgment

Tripura High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 148 (TRI)

Ashoke Datta v. State of Tripura

2014-04-10

S.C.DAS

body2014
JUDGMENT S.C. Das, J.:- Heard learned counsel, Mr. P. Roy Barman for the petitioner. 2. By filing this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner challenged compounding of PRC Case No. 1234 of 2011 in the National Lok Adalat held on 23.11.2013. The petitioner, a Junior Engineer, working in DWS Department of the Government of Tripura, a physically handicapped, lodged an FIR on 25.11.2011 before O/C, East Agartala PS alleging that on that day at about 10.30 am while he went to the office of the Chief Engineer of Water Resources, the Section Officer, Makhan Debbarma assaulted him physically with fists and blows, and as a result he, being a physically handicapped person fell down and received injury. He was taken to hospital and was treated there. Based on the FIR, East Agartala PS Case No. 265 of 2011 under Section 324 read with Section 34 of IPC was registered and after investigation police submitted charge sheet and on the basis of the charge sheet learned Chief Judicial Magistrate on 26.03.2012 took cognizance of offence punishable under Section 325 of IPC and ultimately transferred the case to the Court of Judicial Magistrate, First Class(T. Debbarma), Agartala. 3. National Lok Adalat was scheduled to be held on 23.11.2013 and learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class by order dated 01.11.2013 referred the case to the National Lok Adalat for disposal on compromise. Accordingly, the case was taken up in the Lok Adalat on the date fixed in the presence of both the parties(victim/injured person and accused) and was disposed of on compromise between the parties. 4. The present petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is filed challenging the order of reference to Lok Adalat and the order of settlement on compromise in the Lok Adalat on the ground that the petitioner was not heard at the time when the reference was made and so, the very inception of taking up the matter in the Lok Adalat was wrong and violative of the provisions prescribed in Section 20of the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987. It is submitted by learned counsel, Mr. Roy Barman that the petitioner is a physically handicapped person and he was always eager to proceed with the trial of the case for the punishment of the accused and was never interested to have a compromise. It is submitted by learned counsel, Mr. Roy Barman that the petitioner is a physically handicapped person and he was always eager to proceed with the trial of the case for the punishment of the accused and was never interested to have a compromise. Had he was heard by the Court before the reference was made to the Lok Adalat he would not have given his consent for reference the case. In the Lok Adalat his signature was obtained in blank paper since he was put to surprise in the Lok Adalat and no valid consent was given by the petitioner for settlement of the case on compromise. 5. A compromise or a settlement in the Lok Adalat is final and binding on all the parties to the settlement, agreement or compromise and cannot be challenged in any other forum as prescribed under Section 22E of the Legal Services Authorities Act. 6. In a petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India the power of this Court is to be exercised in a case where the inferior Court or the tribunal acted without jurisdiction or there is an apparent error of law in the order passed or that the finding is totally perverse or that there was a gross violation of the principles of natural justice. Definitely, this Court can look into the correctness, legality or property of an order passed by an inferior Court or tribunal. But this power does not vest the High Court with any unlimited prerogative to correct all species of hardship or wrong decision. It must be restricted to cases of grave dereliction of duty and flagrant abuse of fundamental principles of law or justice, where grave injustice would be done unless the High Court interferes. 7. In the present case, offence alleged to have committed was compoundable in nature, since cognizance was taken under Section 325 of IPC. By impugned order dated 01.11.2013, the case was referred to Lok Adalat. Learned counsel, Mr. Roy Barman seriously criticized that order since the petitioner was not present before the Court at the time of making the reference. Order dated 01.11.2013 reads as follows: 01.11.2013 Received the case record from the court ld. J.M. 1st Class, Court No. 4 on transfer. Perused the same. Register it in my file as PRC case. Accused person namely Makhan Debbarma is present by filing a memo of appearance. Ld. Order dated 01.11.2013 reads as follows: 01.11.2013 Received the case record from the court ld. J.M. 1st Class, Court No. 4 on transfer. Perused the same. Register it in my file as PRC case. Accused person namely Makhan Debbarma is present by filing a memo of appearance. Ld. Defence counsel of accused Makhan Debbarma submitted that the instant case is amicably settled out sides the court. Ld. APP is present. He raised no objection. Upon hearing Ld. Counsel of both sides the instant case is referred to National Lok-Adalat to be held on 23.11.2013. Issue notice to the accd. and informant of the instant case. Fix 23.11.2013 for order. 8. Learned counsel, Mr. Roy Barman has contended that proviso to Section 20 of the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987 makes it abundantly clear that before referring a case to the Lok Adalat, pending before a Court, the Court not only be satisfied that it was appropriate to be taken cognizance by Lok Adalat but also that the parties to the case are heard about the reference. In the present case since the petitioner was not heard by the Court before the reference was made, cognizance taken by the Lok Adalat itself was vitiated. 9. Section 20 of the Legal Services Authority Act reads as follows: [20. Cognizance of cases by Lok Adalats--(1) Where in any case referred to in clause (i) of subsection (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 is 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 such court except 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 reasonable 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 advice 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 sub-section (1).] 10. (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 sub-section (1).] 10. Sub-Section(1) of the above provision makes it clear that the Lok Adalat can take cognizance of a case where the parties thereof agree or 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 is prima facie satisfied that there is chances for such settlement or the Court is satisfied that the matter is an appropriate one to be taken cognizance by the Lok Adalat, the Court may refer the case to the Lok Adalat. 11. PRC Case No. 1234 of 2011 was registered on the basis of a police report. The petitioner set the law in motion by filing an FIR and police investigated the case on the basis of that FIR. Every offence is an offence against the State and when the State agency after investigation submits the charge sheet the victim informant becomes a witness of the police report filed against the accused. The prosecution was supposed to be conducted by the Public Prosecutor as per the provisions prescribed in CrPC. Order dated 01.11.2013 shows that on that date learned APP for the prosecution was present and the accused was also present with his learned counsel. The case was referred to the Lok Adalat after hearing learned APP and learned counsel of the accused. It was submitted on behalf of the accused that the case has been compromised between him and the de-facto complainant. The Magistrate was, prima facie, satisfied and made the reference since the offence was compoundable in nature. So, the case was referred to the Lok Adalat for taking cognizance and disposal according to law. There is nothing to show that any fundamental or legal right of the petitioner was infringed or violated. 12. The case was referred to the National Lok Adalat in view of the aforesaid order dated 01.11.2013. Notices were issued for the Lok Adalat to the parties, i.e. to the de-facto complainant(the petitioner herein) as well as the accused and both of them appeared in the Lok Adalat on 23.11.2013. 12. The case was referred to the National Lok Adalat in view of the aforesaid order dated 01.11.2013. Notices were issued for the Lok Adalat to the parties, i.e. to the de-facto complainant(the petitioner herein) as well as the accused and both of them appeared in the Lok Adalat on 23.11.2013. A memorandum of settlement was signed by both side, i.e. the petitioner herein and the accused at the instance of the conciliators and, thereafter the impugned order dated 23.11.2013 was passed by the learned Magistrate accepting the compromise and the case was accordingly disposed of. Order dated 23.11.2013 reads as follows: 23.11.2013 The case record having been referred for disposal to the National Lok Adalat, Agartala held on 23.11.2013 and the parties having compromised/settled the case and sought for leave of the court. The following order is passed in terms of settlement as annexed with the record. Examined the parties orally when they admitted that they have settled the dispute outside the court by the intervention of well-wishers and they are not interested to proceed further with this case and accused person(s) have paid Rs. ______ ___________ (rupees________ ___________) only towards compensation to the victim/complainant. The leave as sought for is hereby granted as per terms of compromise. The parties further made it clear that no coercion or force or temptation have been made to any of the parties in arriving at compromise/settlement. The accused person(s) is/are acquitted from the charge levelled against him/them. He they is/are set at liberty. The surety(s) are hereby discharged from the liability of bail bond. In the result the case is disposed of on compromise at Lok Adalat. Make necessary entry in the T.R. Announced. -sd- Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class Agartala, West Tripura 13. Admittedly, cognizance was taken by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate by order dated 26.03.2012 on consideration of police report submitted under Section 173 of CrPC for commission of offence punishable under Section 325 of IPC against the accused, Makhan Debbarma. Order dated 19.09.2012 shows that the accused was examined under Section 251 of CrPC and date was fixed for recording evidence. In the meantime, National Lok Adalat was declared and since the offence alleged was compoundable in nature, learned Magistrate after hearing learned APP for the prosecution and learned defence counsel referred the case to Lok Adalat for settlement. Order dated 19.09.2012 shows that the accused was examined under Section 251 of CrPC and date was fixed for recording evidence. In the meantime, National Lok Adalat was declared and since the offence alleged was compoundable in nature, learned Magistrate after hearing learned APP for the prosecution and learned defence counsel referred the case to Lok Adalat for settlement. It is an admitted fact that notices were issued to accused as well as the injured victim, i.e. the petitioner and both appeared in the Lok Adalat and at the behest of conciliators they decided to compromise the case and accordingly compounded the offence which got the seal of the Lok Adalat. Such a settlement in the Lok Adalat cannot be challenged in ordinary course in any other forum. A settlement, once arrived at the consensus of mind, before the Lok Adalat, cannot be changed at a later stage saying that the decision of settlement was not proper or that the consent given was not a proper consent of settlement. On such subsequent change of mind, if settlement in Lok Adalat is changed, the purpose of alternate dispute resolution mechanism through Lok Adalat shall frustrate. A Lok Adalat is considered to be a ’peoples Court’. There is no doubt that it is an effective, efficient, important and so far as our country is concerned, is an ancient Indianized alternative dispute resolution mechanism. It is complimentary and supplementary and gives informal, inexpensive and expeditious justice to the litigating public. Parties feel free to express their mind and then come to a settlement. No question of any coercion or undue influence. At least in the present case there is no such allegation against the Lok Adalat or the conciliators. If after compromising a case in the Lok Adalat, and, on return home, one changes his mind and decide to reverse the decision taken in the Lok Adalat, law cannot help him, as is sought in the present case. 14. Learned counsel, Mr. Roy Barman has submitted that the petitioner is a physically handicapped, having 90% disability and he could not actually understand the consequence of the proceeding taken up in the Lok Adalat and his signature was taken in a blank paper. 15. 14. Learned counsel, Mr. Roy Barman has submitted that the petitioner is a physically handicapped, having 90% disability and he could not actually understand the consequence of the proceeding taken up in the Lok Adalat and his signature was taken in a blank paper. 15. The memorandum of settlement what is placed on record shows that it was signed by the petitioner, the accused as well as the conciliators and the Magistrate presiding over the Court. No doubt, the petitioner was a physically handicapped person. As per record he was working as a junior engineer in the DWS Department of the Government of Tripura and it is presumed that he was a literate being and quite capable of understanding the consequence of such a proceeding before the Lok Adalat. 16. Learned counsel has referred the case of Dr. Smt. Shashi Prateek v. Charan Singh Verma & Anr. reported in AIR 2009 Allahabad 109. On going through the fact of that case I find that it was a case where the petitioner was not even present in the Lok Adalat but the case was settled. The present case is quite different from that of the reported case and I find no reason at all to apply the ratio of that reported case in the facts of the present case. 17. Mr. Roy Barman, learned counsel also referred the case of State of Punjab & Ors. v. Phulan Rani & Anr. reported in (2004) 7 SCC 555 . It was regarding disposal of a writ petition in the Lok Adalat which was on the issue of certain claim of pension. Learned counsel, Mr. Roy Barman has submitted that in every case of settlement or compromise there must be something give and take by the parties and in the absence of any such stipulation the settlement arrived at between the parties cannot be accepted as a reasonable settlement. The present case is a criminal case for alleged physical assault of the petitioner. The petitioner appeared in the Lok Adalat on receipt of notice and settled the case with the accused. In such a case of criminal offence settlement may be arrived to purchase peace and tranquility between the parties without actually in terms of anything else. So, the ratio of that decision, in my considered opinion, cannot be applied in the given facts of this case. 18. In such a case of criminal offence settlement may be arrived to purchase peace and tranquility between the parties without actually in terms of anything else. So, the ratio of that decision, in my considered opinion, cannot be applied in the given facts of this case. 18. The other case referred by learned counsel, Mr. Roy Barman is that of non-noticing of a victim in the event a final report is accepted, i.e. the case of Union Public Service Commission v. S. Papaiah & Ors. reported in (1997) 7 SCC 614 . I find nothing to apply the ratio of that decision in the present case since in the present case when the case was referred to the Lok Adalat notice was given to the petitioner and the petitioner appeared in the Lok Adalat and arrived at a settlement. So that decision cannot help the petitioner in any manner. 19. In view of the discussions made above, I find no merit in the petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, and hence it stands dismissed.