‘Now, Lok Adalats’ decision in criminal cases to be final’
Paving way for speedy disposal of criminal cases, the Supreme Court on Monday allowed decisions given by Lok Adalats to be final in criminal matters as well.
After the success of out-of-court settlements achieved by Lok Adalats in civil matters, persons facing trial in criminal matters, largely pertaining to cheque bouncing cases, were approaching Lok Adalats for settlement. But decisions given by these courts were never deemed to be final decree passed by a civil court. As a result, even if parties agreed to rest their disputes on conditions mutually agreeable to them, the Court where the trial was pending had the choice either to approve or reject the settlement.
Deciding this tricky question of law arising out of a Kerala High Court decision in a similar cheque bouncing case, a bench of Justices P Sathasivam and J Chalameswar said, “Even if a matter is referred by a criminal court under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act 1881 and by virtue of the deeming provisions, the award passed by the Lok Adalat based on a compromise has to be treated as a decree capable of execution by a civil court.”
The case in question related to non-payment of a sum of `6,000. The parties approached Lok Adalats, which directed the accused to deposit the sum in five equal installments. But when the order of the Lok Adalat was shown to the trial court, it refused to take note of it and proceeded with the trial.
When the accused challenged the trial judge’s action before Kerala HC, the latter observed: “When a criminal case is referred to the Lok Adalat and it is settled at the Lok Adalat, the award passed has to be treated only as an order of that criminal court and it cannot be executed as a decree of the civil court.”
Putting an end to the confusion created by the HC, Justice Sathasivam, who wrote the judgment for the bench, noted the object and purpose of the Legal Services Authorities Act 1987 under which Lok Adalats were created to reduce the burden of regular courts and to take justice to the doorsteps, making it speedy and less expensive. It said, “The 1987 Act does not make out any distinction between the reference made by a civil court and criminal court.”




