The High Court held that a trial court cannot refer a case involving non-compoundable offences to Lok Adalat. Consequently, the orders referring such a case and the Lok Adalat award were quashed.
Quashed the trial court order of reference and the Lok Adalat award; restored the case to the trial court file.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
W.P.No.44134/2016
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 11TH DAY OF JUNE 2021
BEFORE
THE HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE K.S.MUDAGAL
WRIT PETITION No.44134/2016(GM-RES)
BETWEEN :
STATE OF KARNATAKA BY M.K.DODDI POLICE STATION CHANNAPATNA TALUK RAMANAGARA DISTRICT - 571 501
… PETITIONER
(BY SMT.NAMITHA MAHESH B.G., HCGP)
AND :
N.L.SURESH S/O LINGEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS R/O NAGAVARA VILLAGE KASABA HOBLI, CHANNAPATNA TALUK RAMANAGARA DISTRICT – 571 501 … RESPONDENT (BY SRI.SIJI MALAYIL , AMICUS CURIAE)
THIS PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF CONSTITUTION OF INDIA READ WITH SECTION 482 OF CR.P.C PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED 07.04.2014 PASSED IN C.C.NO.441/2013 ON THE FILE OF THE SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, CHANNAPATNA AT ANNEXURE ‘C’ ARISING OUT OF CRIME NO.56/09 REGISTERED BY M.K.DODDI POLICE STATION, CHANNAPATNA TALUK, RAMANAGARA DISTRICT FOR THE OFFENCES PUNISHABLE UNDER SECTIONS 32 AND 34 OF KARNATAKA EXCISE ACT, 1965.
W.P.No.44134/2016
2
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP THIS DAY, THE COURT THROUGH VIDEO CONFERENCE MADE THE FOLLOWING:
O R D E R
“Whether the Court can refer a case relating to non-compoundable offence to Lok Adalat and Lok Adalat has jurisdiction to determine such case”? are the questions involved in this case.
W.P.No.44134/2016
3
admitted the guilt. Further the Lok Adalat by the impugned award convicted the accused for the offences punishable under Sections 32 and 34 of the Excise Act and sentenced him to pay fine of Rs.500/- and imprisonment till rising of the Court.
W.P.No.44134/2016
4
19 and 20 of the Act. In support of her contentions, she relies upon the following judgments:
“19. Organization of Lok Adalats.― (1) Every State Authority or District Authority or the Supreme Court Legal Services Committee or every High Court Legal Services Committee or, as the case may be, Taluk Legal Services Committee may organise Lok Adalats at such intervals and places and for exercising such jurisdiction and for such areas as it thinks fit.
1 (2008) 7 SCC 454
2 2016 SCC Online Pat 4706
W.P.No.44134/2016
5
(2) ………………..
(3) ………………..
(4) ………..……….
(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 falling 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.”
clear that Lok Adalat has no jurisdiction in respect of the
case relating to non compoundable offence.
“20. Cognizance of Cases by Lok Adalats.― (1) Where in any case referred to in clause (i) of sub-section (5) of Section 19―
W.P.No.44134/2016
6
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.”
the proviso to the said section makes it clear that Court can refer a case to Lok Adalat only if the same is appropriate . Again what is appropriate case depends on the fact whether Lok Adalat can take cognizance of such offences and has jurisdiction to decide the same. Proviso to Section 19(5) of the Act bars the jurisdiction of Lok Adalat over a case relating to a non compoundable offence. Therefore the logic of the law is that Court cannot refer a case involving non compoundable offence to the Lok Adalat.
W.P.No.44134/2016
7
the Patna High Court held that the Lok Adalat constituted under Sections 20 and 22 of the Act has no jurisdiction in respect of any matter relating to the offence which is non-compoundable under any law. Therefore the Court cannot refer such cases to Lok Adalat.
W.P.No.44134/2016
8
imprisonment not less than one year and fine not less than Rs.10,000/- which is extendable upto four years and Rs.50,000/-. The Lok Adalat sentenced the accused to imprisonment till rising of the Court and fine of Rs.500/-. That shows how lightly the Lok Adalat dealt with the matter.
For the aforesaid reasons, the petition is allowed. The impugned order of reference dated 07.04.2014 in C.C.No.441/2013 passed by the trial Court and the award of the Lok Adalat as per Annexure-C are hereby quashed.
C.C.No.441/2013 is restored to the file of the trial Court. The trial Court shall secure the presence of the
W.P.No.44134/2016
9
accused and adjudicate the matter in accordance with law.
The trial Court shall not be biased by the alleged admission of guilt or plea of guilt of the accused.
Sd/JUDGE
akc
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the Court can refer a case relating to a non-compoundable offence to Lok Adalat.
Whether Lok Adalat has jurisdiction to determine a case involving non-compoundable offences.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Ajay SinhaReferred¶63
(2008) 7 SCC 454 · Who else cites this
Urmila Masomat v. State of BiharReferred¶66
2016 SCC Online Pat 4706 · Who else cites this
3 provisions across 2 enactments
State of Karnataka
N.L. Suresh
K.S. Mudagal
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
