Lok Adalat has no jurisdiction to offence under rash driving: HC

06/06/2023

JAMMU, Jun 5: In a petition, Justice Sanjeev Kumar holds that Lok Adalat has no jurisdiction to compound the offence under Section 279 of RPC and, therefore, the order impugned is nullity in the eye of law.
This significant order has been passed in a petition challenging of award/order dated 23.11.2013 passed by the Lok Adalat presided over by the learned JMIC (Munsiff), R.S.Pura whereby respondent No.2, who was accused in FIR No.23/2013 registered with Police Station, R.S.Pura and facing trial before the Court of learned JMIC (Munsiff) R.S.Pura, has been convicted and sentenced to pay a fine of Rs.200/ for commission of offence under Section 279 RPC and Rs. 300/- under Section 338 RPC. The petitioner before me is the complainant at whose instance, the subject FIR was registered in Police Station, R.S.Pura against respondent No.2. The police, after investigating the matter and finding the allegations leveled by the petitioner substantiated by evidence, produced the challan against respondent No.2 in the Court of learned JMIC (Munsiff), R.S. Pura [' the trial Court']. As it transpires from the order impugned, the trial Court referred the case to the Lok Adalat, held at R.S.Pura on 23.11.2013. Respondent No.2, accused in the case, pleaded guilty. The Lok Adalat presided over by the learned JMIC (Munsiff), R.S Pura, after recording the plea of guilt of respondent No.2-accused and taking a lenient view in the matter, vide order dated 23.11.2013 convicted and sentenced him to pay a fine of Rs.200/- and Rs. 300 respectively. It is this award/order of the Lok Adalat dated 23.11.2013 which is assailed by the petitioner before this Court.
Justice Sanjeev Kumar after hearing both the sides observed that in view of the clear position emerging from a reading of Section 345 of J&K Cr.PC read with Section 18 of the Act of 1997, it is difficult for this Court to sustain the order of the Lok Adalat impugned in this petition. Justice Sanjeev Kumar further observed that from a reading of the impugned order, it clearly transpires that the same has been passed by the Lok Adalat without even notice to the person who was hurt in the accident i.e the petitioner herein, nor the Lok Adalat could have convicted the accused and sentenced him to fine for a meager amount of Rs.200/- and Rs.300 respectively as has been done in terms of the impugned order. As is evident from a reading of sub-Section (6) of Section 345 of J&K Cr.PC, whenever the Court orders compounding of an offence in terms of the provisions of the Section, the same has the effect of acquittal of the accused. Be that as it may, it is a case where the petitioner, who was hurt in the accident, which resulted into registration of the subject FIR against respondent No.2, was a necessary party to the compounding of the offence and the Lok Adalt, by not putting the petitioner to notice and providing him an opportunity of being heard, has passed the impugned order. That apart, Lok Adalat has no jurisdiction to compound the offence under Section 279 of RPC and, therefore, the order impugned is nullity in the eye of law. The order impugned also violates the right of respondent No.2 (accused) who, on compounding of the offence, was entitled to acquittal and not conviction. Viewed from any angle, the order impugned passed by the Lok Adalat cannot sustain in law and the same is, accordingly, quashed. The matter is remanded back to the trial Court i.e JMIC (Munsiff), who shall proceed in the matter/challan in accordance with law. The trial Court shall do well to put the parties concerned to notice before proceeding further in the matter.

Photo Gallery

BSE Sensex

NSE Nifty