Lok Adalat cannot dismiss a case for non-appearance of the complainant
Allahabad High Court Quashes Lok Adalat's Dismissal of NI Act Case for Non-Appearance. Judicial Officer Warned for Unauthorized Dismissal; Case Remanded to Chief Judicial Magistrate
In a significant judgment, the Allahabad High Court has quashed a Lok Adalat's decision to dismiss a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, due to non-appearance of the complainant. The High Court, presided over by Justice Anish Kumar Gupta, ruled that the Lok Adalat exceeded its jurisdiction and acted beyond its authority by dismissing the case for want of prosecution, emphasizing that such matters should be referred back to the concerned court if no settlement is reached.
The case, "Rajeev Jain v. State of U.P.," revolved around a complaint filed by Rajeev Jain against the opposite party for dishonoring a cheque, a matter governed by the Negotiable Instruments Act. The complaint was initially taken up in Lok Adalat on December 9, 2017, where it was dismissed due to the complainant's absence. Justice Gupta highlighted that the dismissal was illegal as the Lok Adalat is not empowered to pass such orders.
According to the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987, a case can be referred to a Lok Adalat only with the consent of the parties or upon application by one party, ensuring an opportunity for the other party to be heard. Justice Gupta noted that no such consent was obtained in this case. Furthermore, the Lok Adalat can only act on a settlement or compromise between the parties. In the absence of an agreement, the case must be sent back to the original court for adjudication.
The High Court's decision emphasized the procedural safeguards under Sections 19 and 20 of the Legal Services Authorities Act, underscoring that Lok Adalats are meant to facilitate amicable settlements and not to adjudicate disputes on merits. The judgment also issued a warning to the judicial officer responsible for the unauthorized dismissal, underscoring the importance of adhering to legal procedures in judicial conduct.
The case has now been remanded to the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Etah, to be decided in accordance with the law from the stage it was dismissed in Lok Adalat. This ruling serves as a reminder of the limited jurisdiction of Lok Adalats and reinforces the procedural requirements for referring matters to such alternative dispute resolution mechanisms.
Bottom Line:
Lok Adalat cannot dismiss a case for non-appearance of the complainant. If no compromise or settlement is reached, the matter must be referred back to the concerned court for disposal in accordance with law.
Statutory provision(s): Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987 Sections 19(5) and 20, Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 Section 138
Rajeev Jain v. State of U.P., (Allahabad) : Law Finder Doc Id # 2791637
