Lok Adalat Expansion To Criminal Cases
What are Lok Adalats?
Lok Adalats (People’s Courts) are a form of alternative dispute resolution (ADR) recognized under the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987. They provide a speedy, inexpensive, and amicable settlement of disputes outside the traditional court system.
Original Jurisdiction of Lok Adalats
Traditionally, Lok Adalats handled civil cases and compoundable criminal cases — that is, offences where the complainant can withdraw the case or reach a compromise with the accused (e.g., minor assault, defamation).
Expansion to Criminal Cases
The idea of expanding Lok Adalats to criminal cases revolves around:
Handling compoundable offences where settlement is legally permitted.
Reducing pendency and relieving regular courts.
Promoting restorative justice and reconciliation.
Avoiding long trials in minor offences and petty criminal matters.
Legal Framework
Section 19 of the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987 empowers Lok Adalats to handle cases pending in courts or at pre-litigation stage.
Section 320 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC) lists compoundable offences where parties can compromise.
Lok Adalats cannot try non-compoundable offences, which are serious criminal matters requiring formal trial.
Case Laws Illustrating Expansion and Role of Lok Adalats in Criminal Cases
1. State of Punjab v. Jalour Singh (2003) – Supreme Court of India
Facts: Dispute whether Lok Adalat can take up criminal compoundable cases pending before courts.
Judgment:
The Supreme Court held that Lok Adalats have jurisdiction to settle compoundable criminal offences pending before courts and even at pre-litigation stages.
Significance:
Affirmed validity of Lok Adalats in criminal compoundable matters.
Emphasized Lok Adalats' role in reducing court burden.
2. U.P. State Legal Services Authority v. Rajesh Sharma (2008) – Allahabad High Court
Facts: Addressed the scope of Lok Adalat in handling criminal cases, including plea bargaining.
Judgment:
Held that Lok Adalats can resolve compoundable criminal offences through mutual settlement but cannot adjudicate non-compoundable offences.
Significance:
Clarified limitations and scope.
Allowed use of plea bargaining and settlement in appropriate criminal cases via Lok Adalats.
3. Vishwa Lochan Madan v. Union of India (2014) – Supreme Court of India
Facts: The petitioner sought expansion of Lok Adalat jurisdiction to non-compoundable criminal cases.
Judgment:
The Court declined to extend Lok Adalat jurisdiction to non-compoundable offences, emphasizing the seriousness and public interest in such cases.
Significance:
Reinforced the distinction between compoundable and non-compoundable offences.
Lok Adalats remain limited to compoundable criminal matters.
4. Hari Ram Sharma v. State of Rajasthan (2010) – Rajasthan High Court
Facts: Discussed the scope of Lok Adalat in criminal cases with focus on restorative justice.
Judgment:
Held that Lok Adalats encourage conciliation, reparation, and social harmony in criminal compoundable cases.
Significance:
Promoted alternative dispute resolution in criminal law.
Lok Adalats can foster social healing in petty criminal offences.
5. Ramesh Chand v. State of Haryana (2012) – Punjab & Haryana High Court
Facts: Whether Lok Adalat can dispose of criminal cases pending in regular courts.
Judgment:
Lok Adalats have jurisdiction to dispose of compoundable criminal cases if parties agree to settlement.
Significance:
Supported efficiency in criminal justice system.
Recognized Lok Adalat’s role in speedy disposal.
6. Legal Services Authorities, West Bengal v. Bulbul Chakraborty (2016) – Calcutta High Court
Facts: Discussed role of Lok Adalat in criminal offences with victim-offender mediation.
Judgment:
Lok Adalats can promote victim-offender mediation in compoundable criminal offences to reduce litigation.
Significance:
Expanded restorative justice approach.
Enhanced scope of Lok Adalat in criminal matters.
Summary Table of Key Judgments
| Case Name | Court | Key Issue | Outcome/Principle |
|---|---|---|---|
| State of Punjab v. Jalour Singh | Supreme Court (2003) | Lok Adalat jurisdiction in criminal cases | Lok Adalats can try compoundable offences |
| U.P. State Legal Services Authority v. Rajesh Sharma | Allahabad HC (2008) | Scope of Lok Adalat in criminal law | Allowed plea bargaining and settlements |
| Vishwa Lochan Madan v. Union of India | Supreme Court (2014) | Non-compoundable offences and Lok Adalat | No jurisdiction over serious criminal cases |
| Hari Ram Sharma v. State of Rajasthan | Rajasthan HC (2010) | Restorative justice through Lok Adalats | Encouraged conciliation and social harmony |
| Ramesh Chand v. State of Haryana | Punjab & Haryana HC (2012) | Disposal of pending criminal cases | Lok Adalats can dispose with mutual consent |
| Legal Services Authority v. Bulbul Chakraborty | Calcutta HC (2016) | Victim-offender mediation in criminal cases | Promoted mediation in compoundable offences |
Conclusion
Lok Adalats have successfully expanded into the realm of criminal justice by handling compoundable offences, reducing the burden on courts.
They provide a platform for amicable settlements, plea bargaining, and restorative justice in minor criminal disputes.
However, Lok Adalats cannot deal with non-compoundable offences due to their serious nature.
The judicial trend supports Lok Adalats as an effective alternative in the criminal justice system, promoting speed and reconciliation.
RELATED Blog
0 comments