Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 717 (MP)

Ram Milan Dubey v. Vandana Jain

2016-08-22

S.K.PALO

body2016
ORDER : S.K. PALO, J. 1. Heard. 2. This revision under Section 397 read with Section 401 has been preferred challenging the order dated 13.08.2015 passed by 9th A.S.J, Jabalpur in Criminal Revision No. 60/2014, whereby the revision filed by the respondent was allowed and order of the J.M.F.C, Jabalpur dated 30.11.2013 was set aside and Criminal Case No. 8415/2010 was restored to its original number. 3. Filtering the unnecessary details, the facts requisite for disposal of this petition are that the petitioners' father purchased land with house vide registered sale deed dated 16.07.1940. The house was numbered 1493/1 and renumbered from time to time by the Municipal Corporation and presently numbered 3155. 4. After the death of his father, the petitioner No. 1 became the owner of the property and is residing there. Respondent/non-applicant No. 1 created hindrance in the petitioners' peaceful possession over the said property. Therefore, civil litigation started which are pending before various Courts. Respondent No. 1 lodged a report before Police Station Garha for offence under Section 294, 506 and 323/34 of I.P.C. This Criminal Case No. 8415/2010 was pending before J.M.F.C, Jabalpur. In the "National Lok Adalat" dated 30.11.2013, the same was withdrawn by the State Government under Section 321 of Code of Criminal Procedure. Therefore, the same was dismissed as withdrawn by the prosecution in public interest. This withdrawal of the case was challenged by respondent No. 1 before the learned 9th A.S.J, Jabalpur as Criminal Revision No. 60/2014 in which the learned A.S.J held that the order dated 30.11.2013 passed by J.M.F.C, Jablapur is not an award passed by the Lok Adalat and in this circumstances, the legality of the said order can be challenged in revision. 5. It is further held that the withdrawal of the prosecution was not for valid reason. Therefore, the order dated 30.11.2013 was set aside and restored the Criminal Case No. 8415/2010 to decide in it's original number. C.J.M, Jabalpur was directed to proceed in the matter or to refer it to any appropriate Court. 6. The petitioners challenged the said order of the revisional Court and requested for restoring the order of J.M.F.C on several ground. 7. It is stated that as per the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987, the case was disposed of, therefore, the order is not revisable nor appeal-able. 8. 6. The petitioners challenged the said order of the revisional Court and requested for restoring the order of J.M.F.C on several ground. 7. It is stated that as per the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987, the case was disposed of, therefore, the order is not revisable nor appeal-able. 8. Learned counsel for the respondent No. 1 submits that the criminal case pending before the J.M.F.C was neither compromised nor settled between the parties, therefore, the matter was not a settlement or award as per the ambit of Legal Session Authorities Act, 1987. 9. Application under Section 321 of Cr.P.C had no consent of the complainant. Therefore, order dated 30.11.2013 passed by the J.M.F.C, Jabalpur was not good in the eyes of law. The learned revisional Court has passed order dated 13.08.2015 which is well merited and does not warrant any interference. 10. Heard the rival contentions and perused the record. Vide order dated 30.11.2013 in the National Lok Adalat, the Criminal Case No. 8415/2010 for offence under Sections 294, 323 and 506 (ii) of I.P.C have been withdrawn by the prosecution which was allowed under Section 321 of the Cr.P.C. The accused/petitioners were acquitted for the said offences. 11. Aggrieved by this the respondent No. 1 challenged the same before the revisional Court and the revisional Court after elaborate order has restored the criminal case to decide original number stating that it is not a "compromise" nor "award" 12. The matter which can be taken by the Lok Adalat for disposal are enumerated in Section 20 of the Legal Services Authority Act, 1986 which reads as under:- 20 Cognizance of cases by Lok Adalats - (1) Where in any case referred to in clause (i) of sub-section (5) of section 19. The matter which can be taken by the Lok Adalat for disposal are enumerated in Section 20 of the Legal Services Authority Act, 1986 which reads as under:- 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 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 organising 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 (i) 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. (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 sub-section (1)." Hon'ble the Apex Court in the case of State of Punjab v. Ganpat Raj, 2007 (1) M.P Weekly Note, 113 has opined that:- 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. Two crucial terms in sub-sections (3) and (5) of section 20 are "compromise' and "settlement" The former expression means settlement of differences by mutual concessions. It is an agreement reached by adjustment of conflicting or opposing claims by reciprocal modification of demands. As per Terms de la ley, "compromise is a mutual promise to two or more parties that are at controversy" As per Bouvier it is" an agreement between two or more persons, who, to avoid a law suit, amicably settle their differences, on such terms as they can agree upon" The word "compromise" implies some element of accommodation on each side. It is not apt to describe total surrender. (See NFU Development Trust Ltd. Re [(1973) 1 All ER 135= (1972) 1 WLR 1548 (Ch D)]). A compromise is always bilateral and means mutual adjustment. "Settlement" is termination of legal proceedings by mutual consent. It is not apt to describe total surrender. (See NFU Development Trust Ltd. Re [(1973) 1 All ER 135= (1972) 1 WLR 1548 (Ch D)]). A compromise is always bilateral and means mutual adjustment. "Settlement" is termination of legal proceedings by mutual consent. 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." Challenged was made before the learned Revisional Court is that the Lok Adalat had no jurisdiction to pass such an order. Powers under Section 321 of Cr.P.C cannot be exercised in Lok Adalat. In the case of State of Punjab and Another v. Jalour Singh and Others, (2008) 2 SCC 660 , the Full Bench of the Hon'ble Apex Court has held that:- "Where an award is made by the Lok Adalat in terms of a settlement arrived at between the parties (which is duly signed by parties and annexed to the award of the Lok Adalat), it becomes final and binding on the parties to the settlement and becomes executable as if it is a decree of a civil court, and no appeal lies against it to any Court. If any party wants to challenge such an award based on settlement, it can be done only by filing a petition under Article 226 and/or Article 227 of the Constitution, that too on very limited grounds. But where no compromise or settlement is signed by the parties and the order of the Lok Adalat does not refer to any settlement, but directs the respondent to either make payment if it agrees to the order, or approach the High Court for disposal of appeal on merits, if it does not agree, is not an award of the Lok Adalat. The question of challenging such an order in a petition under Article 227 does not arise. In such a situation, the High Court ought to hear and dispose of the appeals on merits" 13. The question of challenging such an order in a petition under Article 227 does not arise. In such a situation, the High Court ought to hear and dispose of the appeals on merits" 13. The learned counsel for the petitioners pressing his arguments submitted that no revision lie against the order of Lok Adalat, relying upon the case of P.T. Thomas v. Thomas Job, (2005) 6 SCC 478 in which the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that, when the decree on compromise is based by the Lok Adalat it will have the same binding effect and be conclusive. It is final and permanent and equivalent a decree executable and is an end to the litigation among the parties. 14. The words used "decree on compromise" is very important. In the present case, the order dated 30.11.2013 cannot be deemed to be a decree on compromise order according to the Section 320 of Cr.P.C. 15. Counsel for the petitioners also stressed that the function of the Court in withdrawing the criminal case under Section 321 Cr.P.C cannot be challenged, therefore, the same cannot be assailed before the revisional Court. He placed reliance on State of Bihar v. Ramnaresh Pandey, AIR 1957 SC 389 . 16. The withdrawal of prosecution can be allowed only in regular Court in exercise of powers under Section 321 Cr.P.C and after examining the merits of the case, in the interest of justice. Without adverting to the merits of the application under Section 321 Cr.P.C, suffice, it to say that adjudication by the Court in exercise of its power under Section 321 of Cr.P.C could only be examined by a regular Court. The same cannot be exercised by a Lok Adalat as has been earlier stated in the case of State of Punjab v. Ganpat Raj (Supra). 17. The inevitable result in the present revision is, therefore, order of the learned J.M.F.C has rightly been set aside by the order of learned A.S.J in Criminal Revision No. 60/2014, as the powers of disposal of cases by LoK Adalat relates to only "settlement" between the parties by 'compromise' and no case can be disposed of without 'compromise' or 'settlement' between the parties. 18. The revision, therefore, sans merit and is dismissed.