Lok Adalat Cannot Dismiss Referred Case for Default, Must Return Record to Court: Rajasthan High Court

By an order of 10.02.2020, the SDM allowed a complaint filed by the SHO under Section 145 CrPC against the petitioner (para 1). The petitioner challenged it in a criminal revision petition before the Sessions Court, which was later referred to the Lok Adalat for settlement under the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987 (para 1). The petitioner did not submit to the Lok Adalat's jurisdiction for settlement, and the parties did not take part in the proceedings there (para 6). By its order of 19.04.2022 the Lok Adalat dismissed the case in default; the petitioner challenged that order (paras 1, 7). The only question was whether a Lok Adalat can dismiss a referred case in default of appearance (para 2).

Section 20(5) of the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987 provides that where the Lok Adalat makes no award because no compromise or settlement could be arrived at, it shall return the record to the court from which the reference was received, for disposal in accordance with law (para 3). The Court read this as a statutory mandate: when there is no settlement, the Lok Adalat must send the file back to the referring court (para 4). The referring court then deals with the case under the appropriate legal procedure (para 5). Applying this, the Court noted that the petitioner had not subjected himself to the Lok Adalat's jurisdiction for settlement. Even in the worst case, the result was only that no settlement could be reached within Section 20(5), because the parties did not participate before the Lok Adalat (para 6). The only course open to the Lok Adalat was therefore to send the matter back to the appropriate court for further proceedings in accordance with law (para 6). A Lok Adalat is not vested with power to dismiss a case in default; by passing the impugned order it clearly exceeded its jurisdiction (para 7).