Iqbal Singh v. State Of Punjab And Others
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH Date of decision : 21.08.2023 IQBAL SINGH ....Petitioner
Versus
STATE OF PUNJAB AND OTHERS
...Respondents
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PANKAJ JAIN Present :
Mr. Arnav Sood, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. Kunal Vinayak, AAG, Punjab.
Mr. Parvinder Singh, Advocate for respondent No.2.
Mr. Ibadat Singh, Advocate for respondents No.3, 7, 8 and 9.
PANKAJ JAIN, J. (ORAL) By way of present petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. the petitioner has impugned order dated 11th of September, 2021 passed by National Lok Adalat, Garhshankar whereby criminal complaint bearing No. COMI/12/2017 dated 18th of April, 2017 has been ordered to be withdrawn and the respondents have been ordered to be discharged. 2.
The order dated 11th of September, 2021 reads as under : "xxxx File taken up today before the National Lok Adalat. Compromise has been effected between the parties. Complainant vide his separate statement stated that he do not want to proceed with the present complaint and same may be dismissed as
-2withdrawn. Accordingly, present complaint stands dismissed as withdrawn in National Lok Adalat today. All the accused stands discharged. Their bail bonds and surety bonds are also discharged. File be consigned to record room, Garhshankar after due completion. xxxx"
3.
Counsels for the respondents do not dispute that the order dated 11th of September, 2021 per se is without jurisdiction. However, an objection has been raised by Mr. Parvinder Singh, Advocate counsel representing respondent No.2 by submitting that the order passed by National Lok Adalat exercising jurisdiction under Section 19 and thus it will be deemed decree under Section 21 of the Legal Services Authority Act, 1987. The only remedy available to the petitioner qua that is to invoke writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Reliance has been placed upon law laid down by Apex Court in State of Punjab and another vs. Jalour Singh and others, (2008) 2 SCC 660. 4.
I have heard counsel for the parties and have gone through records of the case.
5.
Jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. vested in this Court is to make such orders as may be necessary to give effect to any order under this Code, or to prevent abuse of the process of any Court or otherwise to secure the ends of justice. The law w.r.t. exercise thereof is well discussed by Apex Court in 'Janta Dal vs. H.S. Chowdhary and others', (1992) 4 SCC 305 :
-3-
!
" # !$ ! ! % #&# !#$!'$ ()#!
'! *# ! *# + " # *# !+#($!! !%"!,% !,+%"! ! %#% # '
& $! #! $!- # !$!,.!, /## #%# ! # # .!# , !.! ,' +.## .' !!!+ ' . /#! ! ! #.!! /# !
$! ! # ' & .,% ## ! ", ! ", # *# %! !# ' # $# .! # !
' .! #
0&1# ! $$2 3
! 23
!
"
# $%&' ()!!-"!
%!".# ," ! #! !
, , # ." &" !
& #" *+ ,
,- -.'
$(% /,))( !
!!'!$' % #! /# .' 4# -!+1!-% $ ! 5!%#.!6!,! +1! %! ", # ! "!#% # # (",% #!% #'% $! /# !!!$!- !, # #%
-41#7% ! '! !, + "+. ! ' $ ,%!
!%!!.#.,!#. ! # (
0
+ 1
1##
2 3 #-- 2 3 ,//(! - ,- -.2# (($,%,&&
&#+# !.'
.,% #2 3%" !, ! # 823"!.# !, #823 # /#9 !' % #+!.." 2
,- -.2 #- & ,-&4 $& %,&+!. ! " %"! !%%" !,! !# .' ",!% , "!.# !, ## /#! !# .' !!%! '.! !%! !," : 2 3 0
+1
1##
2 3 #-- ,-)&( ,//(5# # ,-/6 ,- -.7 ##
* 8
&,- &$&% , 6.
In view of above, after having found that the order passed by National Lok Adalat is per se illegal and cannot have any effect on the trial, this Court deems it appropriate to direct the Trial Court to proceed with the trial irrespective of the order passed by the National Lok Adalat which is inconsequential and can have no bearing on trial instead of upholding the preliminary objections raised by respondent and asking the petitioner to
-5avail remedy under Article 226 of the Constitution of India as there can be no second opinion vis-a-vis the impugned order being unsustainable. 7.
The petitioner stands disposed off in above terms. August 21, 2023 (Pankaj Jain) Dpr Judge Whether speaking/reasoned :
Yes/No Whether reportable :
Yes/No