Allahabad High Court Quashes Lok Adalat Dismissal in Negotiable Instruments Case

Landmark Judgment Reinforces Procedure for Referral and Dismissal in Lok Adalat Cases

In a significant ruling, the Allahabad High Court has quashed the dismissal of a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, by a Lok Adalat due to the non-appearance of the complainant. The judgment, delivered by Justice Anish Kumar Gupta on October 6, 2025, underscores the procedural mandates for Lok Adalat referrals and dismissals, emphasizing that cases cannot be dismissed for want of prosecution without proper compromise or settlement.

The case, Rajeev Jain v. State of U.P., revolved around the premature dismissal of a complaint filed by Rajeev Jain against Brahm Kumar, taken up by the Lok Adalat without Jain's consent. The dismissal occurred despite the absence of a compromise or settlement, which is a prerequisite for case resolution in Lok Adalat as per the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987.

Justice Gupta highlighted the statutory provisions governing Lok Adalat proceedings, particularly Sections 19(5) and 20 of the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987. These sections stipulate that cases can only be referred to Lok Adalat with the parties' consent or a court's satisfaction that settlement is likely. Furthermore, if no settlement is achieved, the matter must be returned to the originating court for proper disposal.

The court criticized the judicial officer's decision to dismiss the case, stating that such actions overstep the authority granted to Lok Adalats, which are intended to facilitate amicable settlements, not to adjudicate disputes on merits or dismiss them summarily.

The judgment not only reinstates the complaint for further proceedings before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Etah, but also issues a caution to judicial officers, urging adherence to prescribed procedures to prevent future lapses.

This ruling serves as a reminder of the critical role of Lok Adalats in India's legal system, reinforcing their mandate to resolve disputes through compromise rather than unilateral dismissal. It highlights the need for judicial officers to act within the scope of their authority, ensuring justice through procedural fairness and legal compliance.

Bottom Line:

Lok Adalat cannot dismiss a case for non-appearance of the complainant. If no compromise or settlement is reached, the matter must be referred back to the concerned court for disposal in accordance with law. 

Statutory provision(s): Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987 Sections 19(5) and 20; Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 Section 138

Rajeev Jain v. State of U.P., (Allahabad) : Law Finder Doc Id # 2791637