JUDGMENT : SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI, J. 1. This petition has been heard through Video Conferencing in view of the guidelines of the High Court taking into account the situation arising due to COVID-19 pandemic. None of the parties have complained about any technical snag of audio-video and with their consent this matter has been heard. 2. This petition has been filed for quashing the order dated 20.01.2015 whereby a Cr. Revision No. 175 of 2014 has been dismissed by the learned Session Judge, Dhanbad and the order dated 25.02.2012 passed by the P.O. Lok Adalat in connection with Dhanbad P.S. Case No. 1134 of 2009, G.R. No. 4281/2009 for the offences punishable under sections 4 and 5 of Explosive Substance Act has been affirmed. 3. The FIR was lodged alleging therein that on 30.12.2009 the petitioner submitted written information to Dhanbad Police that he noticed explosive substance fitted in his gate. Fortunately, it did not explode. It was alleged that the O.P. No. 2 hired anti social elements prior to this incident and they had demolished the eastern portion of the boundary wall of the petitioner. They had terrorized the petitioner and had threatened to demolish the gate. The petitioner had reported the matter earlier also against Harendra Singh and others but the police had not taken any step on the earlier reports for the reasons best known to the police. The case was registered, the police inspected the P.O. and seized the explosive substance from the place as stated in the FIR. The police prepared seizure list in presence of witnesses on 30.12.2019. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner at the outset submits that final form was submitted stating therein that although the occurrence was true but no evidence has been found against the accused. He submits that the Lok Adalat has got no jurisdiction to accept the final form. He further submits that the petitioner has not received any notice after filing of the final form and he has not been able to file any protest petition. He further submits that the revisional court on the ground that order has been passed by the P.O. Lok Adalat and that is why the revisional court has got no jurisdiction and accordingly the criminal revision was dismissed. 5. He further submits that the revisional court on the ground that order has been passed by the P.O. Lok Adalat and that is why the revisional court has got no jurisdiction and accordingly the criminal revision was dismissed. 5. The learned counsel for the O.P. No. 2 submits that the petitioner is having alternative remedy and he may file the protest petition. 6. The learned counsel for the respondent State fairly submits that the Lok Adalat has got no jurisdiction. 7. Section 19 of the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987 stipulates about organization of Lok Adalat. The proviso to sub section 5 to section 19 of the said Act stipulates as under: “Section 19(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. (ii) Any matter which is falling within he 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.” 8. In the light of the above submission of the learned counsel for the parties and after going through the materials on record it transpires that in the instant case the O.P No. 2 was named accused in the FIR and after investigation finally the charge sheet was filed and the accused O.P. No. 2 who is the accused was not sent up for trial. The Court having the jurisdiction has not accepted the final form and the same was accepted in the Lok Adalat. There is no hesitation to the Court to coming to the finding that the Lok Adalat has got no jurisdiction to accept the final form and the dispute in this case is non-compoundable and the Lok Adalat is having no jurisdiction to accept the final form. The order passed by the Lok Adalat is a nullity. 9. Accordingly the order 20.01.2015 passed in the criminal revision as well as the Lok Adalat dated 25.02.2012 are hereby set aside. 10. The matter is restored to its original file and the learned court will pass a fresh order on final form and will proceed in accordance with law. The order passed by the Lok Adalat is a nullity. 9. Accordingly the order 20.01.2015 passed in the criminal revision as well as the Lok Adalat dated 25.02.2012 are hereby set aside. 10. The matter is restored to its original file and the learned court will pass a fresh order on final form and will proceed in accordance with law. It is well settled that the informant is required to be noticed after submission of the final form. 11. This petition [Cr. M.P. No. 580 of 2015] is allowed in the above terms and disposed of. 12. I.A. No. 5564 of 2021 filed for early hearing stands disposed of and it has become infructuous as this petition has already been disposed of.