HC expresses surprise over criminal case shown ‘settled’ in Lok Adalat

 

 

 

 

The Nagpur Bench of Bombay High Court has strongly questioned how a criminal case was shown as “settled” in a Lok Adalat when the accused were not even present and there was no record of summons or identity proof. The court quashed the Lok Adalat order passed against Ajay Nanaji Akkalwar and another accused, saying that a criminal case like this cannot be treated as “settled in Lok Adalat.”

 

The accused were facing trial under Section 12(a) of the Maharashtra Prevention of Gambling Act, 1887 and Section 109 of Indian Penal Code. The Lok Adalat order dated May 7, 2022, passed by the Judicial Magistrate First Class (JMFC), Ghatanji, had shown them as guilty, fined them Rs 200, and sentenced them till rising of the court.

However, the High Court, in its order, delivered by Justice Anil L Pansare and Justice Raj D Wakode, found that there was no proof that summons were ever issued to the accused, the case was not on the Lok Adalat board, no identity document like Aadhaar card was submitted, and there was no application or pursis showing that the accused had pleaded guilty. Due to these serious gaps in procedure,

 

the High Court was shocked that the Magistrate treated this as a Lok Adalat settlement. The Court observed: “We are surprised to find the conclusion arrived at by the learned Magistrate, wherein it says that the case has been settled in Lok Adalat. A criminal case, of the nature mentioned above, cannot be settled in Lok-Adalat… to say it to have been settled in Lok Adalat, where the persons like the petitioners are punished on pleading guilty, is something that cannot be countenanced.”

 

The Court therefore quashed the Lok-Adalat order and restored the case back to the Magistrate for fresh disposal as per law. The petitioners had also challenged a show-cause notice dated November 23, 2022 related to externment proceedings. The High Court said that the petitioners can file their reply to that notice on points related to the present case. Adv M P Khajanchi represented the petitioners while APP S A Ashirgade for respondents/State.