Lok Adalat And Criminal Cases
๐ What is Lok Adalat?
Lok Adalat, meaning โPeopleโs Court,โ is an alternative dispute resolution mechanism in India, formed under the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987. Its primary goal is to settle disputes amicably, avoiding lengthy court procedures.
It is not a regular court, but a forum where cases are settled through compromise and mutual consent.
Decisions (awards) of Lok Adalat are deemed as decrees of civil courts and are final and binding.
There is no appeal against a Lok Adalat award.
โ๏ธ Criminal Cases in Lok Adalat
Lok Adalats can take up only compoundable criminal cases.
โ Compoundable Offences:
Offences that can be compounded (settled) between the complainant and the accused.
Mentioned under Section 320 CrPC (Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973).
Examples: Hurt (Section 323 IPC), Criminal trespass (Section 447 IPC), Defamation (Section 500 IPC), etc.
โ Non-Compoundable Offences:
Serious crimes (e.g., murder, rape, dacoity) cannot be settled in Lok Adalat.
โ Types of Criminal Cases Lok Adalat Can Handle:
Pending compoundable criminal cases in courts.
Pre-litigation cases (before court filing).
Motor vehicle accident compensation cases (though civil in nature, involve criminal FIRs).
Section 138 NI Act cases (cheque bounce).
Domestic disputes (where compromise is possible).
๐๏ธ Key Case Laws on Lok Adalat and Criminal Cases
1. K.N. Govindan Kutty Menon v. C.D. Shaji
(2001) 2 SCC 718
Facts:
A cheque bounce case under Section 138 of the NI Act was settled in Lok Adalat.
The accused agreed to pay the amount, but defaulted later.
Held:
The Supreme Court held that once an award is passed by Lok Adalat, it has the status of a civil court decree.
If one party fails to comply, the other can execute the award under Section 21 of the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987.
No fresh litigation is needed, only execution proceedings.
Significance:
Strengthened the binding nature of Lok Adalat awards in compoundable offences.
2. State of Punjab v. Jalour Singh
(2008) 2 SCC 660
Facts:
A criminal matter was settled in Lok Adalat, but the complainant later alleged that he was forced to compromise.
Held:
The Supreme Court observed that consent is crucial in a Lok Adalat.
If consent is obtained by coercion or fraud, the award is not valid.
Lok Adalat cannot force parties to settle. It is based only on voluntary compromise.
Significance:
Reaffirmed that mutual consent is the foundation of any criminal case settlement in Lok Adalat.
3. S.D. Sugalchand Jain v. Union of India
(2006) 13 SCC 295
Facts:
Income Tax-related prosecution under criminal provisions was sought to be settled in Lok Adalat.
Held:
The Court held that compoundable criminal cases only can be resolved in Lok Adalat.
Serious economic offences involving public interest cannot be allowed.
Significance:
Drew a line between public offences and private compoundable cases.
Reiterated that public interest overrides private settlements in serious crimes.
4. Bhargavi Constructions v. Kothakapu Muthyam Reddy
(2018) 13 SCC 480
Facts:
A compromise decree was passed in a Lok Adalat, but one party later challenged it, alleging lack of proper legal representation.
Held:
The Supreme Court held that if the award is passed without consent or participation, it is null and void.
Lok Adalat must ensure participation and consent of both parties, including through authorized representatives.
Significance:
Emphasized due process in Lok Adalat proceedings, especially in criminal and quasi-criminal matters.
5. Manohar Singh v. State of Madhya Pradesh
(2014) 13 SCC 75
Facts:
The High Court refused to allow compounding of a criminal case, even though it was compoundable and parties had settled it in Lok Adalat.
Held:
Supreme Court reiterated that courts should encourage settlements in compoundable offences.
Lok Adalats serve the purpose of reducing case load and promoting amicable resolution.
Significance:
Recognized Lok Adalat as a tool for de-clogging criminal courts where the offence is minor and compoundable.
๐งพ Summary Table
| Case Name | Key Point | Impact |
|---|---|---|
| K.N. Govindan Kutty Menon v. C.D. Shaji | Lok Adalat award is executable like a decree | Strengthens enforcement of settlements |
| State of Punjab v. Jalour Singh | Consent must be genuine | Ensures voluntary nature of compromise |
| S.D. Sugalchand Jain v. Union of India | Only compoundable criminal offences allowed | Prevents abuse in serious crimes |
| Bhargavi Constructions v. Muthyam Reddy | Legal representation and consent necessary | Protects rights of parties in settlements |
| Manohar Singh v. State of M.P. | Courts should encourage Lok Adalat settlements | Promotes faster resolution of minor criminal cases |
๐ Conclusion
Lok Adalats play a vital role in resolving criminal cases that are compoundable and involve personal disputes.
Their goal is not punitive but restorative โ bringing parties to an amicable understanding.
The courts have consistently supported Lok Adalats while ensuring fairness, voluntariness, and legality of proceedings.
However, serious criminal offences that affect public order or involve grave harm cannot be settled in Lok Adalats.
RELATED Blog
0 comments