# Rajeev Jain v. State of U.P. & Anr

- **Citation:** (2025) 10 ILRA 801
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2025-10-06
- **Case number:** Application U/S 482. No. 2300 of 2020
- **Bench:** Anish Kumar Gupta
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/rajeev-jain-v-state-of-u-p-anr-52721
- **Pages:** 6

## Headnote

Validity of impugned order passed by Lok Adalat
in Complaint Case u/s 138 of the Negotiable
Instruments Act, 188

Headnotes
The Legal Services Authority Act, 1987sec.19, 20- Applicant filed a complaint case u/s
138 of the NI Act -after complying with the
Section 138 and 142 of the NI Act- statement of
complainant was already recorded- matter was
fixed for arguments on summoning of the
accused-at this stage- on one occasion- the
complainant could not present himself to the
court - opposite party no.2 was not summoned
yet-there was no occasion for him for making
any application for reference of the dispute to
the Lok Adalat- nor any such application has
been moved by him-the complainant not moved
any application nor has given any consent for
reference of the matter to the Lok Adalat-
dismissed the case for want of prosecutionwithout following any of the procedure u/s 19
and 20 of the Act, 1987- not permissible for Lok
Adalat to dismiss the case for non-presence of
the complainant- duty of the Lok Adalat to refer
back the matter to court concerned for deciding
the case on merits as has been provided u/s
20(7). Application allowed.

Held, Even if the matter was taken up in Lok
Adalat when the parties were not present, it is
not permissible for Lok Adalat to dismiss the
case for non-presence of the complainant.
Rather, if the parties are not present, it is the
duty of the Lok Adalat to refer back the matter
to court concerned for deciding the case on
merits as has been provided under sub-section
(7) of Section 20 of the Legal Services Authority
Act. (E-9)

Case Law Cited
Nil

List of Acts

## Text

10 All. Rajeev Jain. Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
801
the entire proceedings arising out
of Complaint Case No.02 of 2020 (Sumitra
Tiwari Vs. Virendra Tiwari and Others)
pending in the Court of Learned Court of
Additional Session Judge/ Special Judge -
POCSO Act, Court No.12, Sultanpur are
hereby quashed.
----------
(2025) 10 ILRA 801
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 06.10.2025

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE ANISH KUMAR GUPTA, J.

Application U/S 482. No. 2300 of 2020

Rajeev Jain. .....Applicants
Versus
State of U.P. & Anr. ...Opposite Parties

Counsel for the Applicant:
Niklank Kumar Jain

Counsel for the Opposite Parties:
G.A., Shashi Kumar Mishra

Issue for consideration
Validity of impugned order passed by Lok Adalat
in Complaint Case u/s 138 of the Negotiable
Instruments Act, 188

Headnotes
The Legal Services Authority Act, 1987sec.19, 20- Applicant filed a complaint case u/s
138 of the NI Act -after complying with the
Section 138 and 142 of the NI Act- statement of
complainant was already recorded- matter was
fixed for arguments on summoning of the
accused-at this stage- on one occasion- the
complainant could not present himself to the
court - opposite party no.2 was not summoned
yet-there was no occasion for him for making
any application for reference of the dispute to
the Lok Adalat- nor any such application has
been moved by him-the complainant not moved
any application nor has given any consent for
reference of the matter to the Lok Adalat-
dismissed the case for want of prosecutionwithout following any of the procedure u/s 19
and 20 of the Act, 1987- not permissible for Lok
Adalat to dismiss the case for non-presence of
the complainant- duty of the Lok Adalat to refer
back the matter to court concerned for deciding
the case on merits as has been provided u/s
20(7). Application allowed.

Held, Even if the matter was taken up in Lok
Adalat when the parties were not present, it is
not permissible for Lok Adalat to dismiss the
case for non-presence of the complainant.
Rather, if the parties are not present, it is the
duty of the Lok Adalat to refer back the matter
to court concerned for deciding the case on
merits as has been provided under sub-section
(7) of Section 20 of the Legal Services Authority
Act. (E-9)

Case Law Cited
Nil

List of Acts
1. Legal Services Authority Act, 1987
2. Negotiable Instrument Act, 1881

List of Keywords
Lok Adalat; chances of settlement of dispute
through Lok Adalat; duty bound to return the
case back to the court- not permissible; to
dismiss the case for non-presence of the
complainant.

Appearances of parties
Counsel for Applicant(s) : Niklank Kumar Jain
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A., Shashi
Kumar Mishra

(Delivered by Hon'ble Anish Kumar
Gupta, J.)

1. Heard Sri Niklank Kumar Jain,
learned counsel for the applicant and Sri
Aditya Veer Singh Rana, learned A.G.A.
for the State.

2. This application under Section 482
Cr.P.C. has been filed seeking quashing of
the order dated 09.12.2017 in Complaint
802 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Case No. 49 of 2016 (Rajeev Jain vs.
Brahm Kumar) under Section 138 of the
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (in short,
'N.I. Act, 1881'), P.S.- Kotwali Nagar,
District- Etah as well as to quash the order
dated 23.10.2019 in Criminal Revision No.
27 of 2018 (Rajeev Jain vs. State of U.P.
and Another).

3. Learned counsel for the applicant
submits that the applicant herein had filed a
complaint case under Section 138 of the NI
Act against the opposite party no.2. On
09.12.2017, the matter was taken up in the
Lok Adalat and on the said date since none
appeared on behalf of the complainant, the
complaint was dismissed under Section 203
Cr.P.C. Learned counsel for the applicant
submits that once the matter is taken up in
Lok Adalat it can be disposed of on the
basis of the settlement, if any, arrived at
between the parties and if none appears the
matter is required to be sent back to the
main court for disposal in accordance with
law. However, in Lok Adalat the matters
cannot
be
dismissed
for
want
of
prosecution, even on non appearance of the
complainant.

4. Learned counsel for the applicant
further submits that no consent was ever
given by the complainant for taking up the
matter in Lok Adalat, which was the
precondition for referring the matter to the
Lok Adalat, in this regard he has relied
upon Section 20 of the Legal Services
Authority Act 1987. Thus, the impugned
order dated 09.12.2017 is illegal and cannot
be sustained, therefore, he seeks quashing
of the said order.

5. Learned A.G.A. also submits that
any case pending in court can be referred to
Lok Adalat only with the consent of the
parties, however, if there is no consent the
case cannot be referred to the Lok Adalat.
Even if the matter is referred to the Lok
Adalat, either the matter can be disposed of
in view of the compromise/settlement
arrived at between the parties or if there is
no settlement then the matter is required to
be remitted back to the main court for
disposal of the case in accordance with law.
However, while taking up the matter in Lok
Adalat the same cannot be decided or
dismissed on merit. Therefore, he also
submits that the order dated 09.12.2017 is
not sustainable in the eyes of law.

6. Having heard the submissions so
made by learned counsel for the parties,
this Court has carefully gone through the
record of the case. From the record of the
case it is apparent that the applicant herein
has filed a complaint case under Section
138 of the NI Act, after complying with the
provisions of Sections 138 and 142 of the
NI Act. The said complaint case was listed
on
10.11.2017
for
arguments
on
summoning. Since the complainant was not
present the matter was adjourned to
24.11.2017. On 24.11.2017, again the
complainant was absent and the Presiding
Officer was also on leave, therefore, the
matter was directed to be listed on
13.12.2017. Subsequent thereto, without
the consent of the applicant herein and
without any intimation to him the matter
was taken up on 09.12.2017 in Lok Adalat
and the following order was passed:

"पत्र वली लोक अि लत मेंपेश हई। ब र-ब र क र
पुक र पर पररव िी की ओर से कोई उपदस्थत नहीं ह। ाै दवगत
दतदथयों से कोई उपदस्थत नहीं ह।ाै

 पत्र वली क अवलोकन दकय गय । पत्र वली के
अवलोकन सेदवदित होत हैदक प्रस्तुत प्रकरण मेंपररव िी क बय न
अन्तगगत ि र 200 िं० प्र० स० हो चुक ह।ाै पत्र वली ि र
202 ि० प्र०सं० की स क्ष्य मेंदवच र िीन हैलेदकन पररव िी की
10 All. Rajeev Jain. Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
803
ओर सेकोई उपदस्थत हो रह हैऔर न ही ि र 202 िं० प्र०सं०
केअन्तगगत कोई स क्ष्य पेश दकय ज रह ह।ाै इस स्तर पर पत्र वली
क अवलोकन दकय गय । पत्र वली के अवलोकन सेदवपक्षीगण के
दवरूद्ध प्रथम दृष्ट्य कोई अपर ि वनत प्रतीत नहीं होत ह। अतः प
ाै ररव ि ख ररज होने योग्य ह।ाै

आदेर्

पररव िी क पररव ि ि र 203 िं० प्र०सं० ख ररज
दकय ज त ह।ाै पत्र वली दनयम नुस र ि दखल िफ्तर हो।"

7. Before proceeding further it would
be relevant to take note of provisions of
Section 19(5) and Section 20 of the Legal
Services Authorities Act, 1987, which are
reproduced herein under:

19. Organisation of Lok Adalats-
.......

(5) A Lok Adalat shall have
jurisdiction to determine and to arrive at a
compromise or settlement between the
parties to a dispute in respect of'

(i) any case pending before; or

(ii) any matter which is falling
within the jurisdiction of, and is not
brought before, any Court for which the
Lok Adalat is organised:

Provided that the Lok Adalat
shall have no jurisdiction in respect of any
case or matter relating to an offence not
compoundable under any law.

20. Cognizance of cases by Lok
Adalats.-(1) Where in any case referred to
in clause (i) of sub-section (5) of section
19,

(i) (a) the parties thereof agree;
or

(b) one of the parties thereof
makes an application to the Court, for
referring the case to the Lok Adalat for
settlement and if such court if prima facie
satisfied that there are chances of such
settlement; or

(ii) the court is satisfied that the
matter is an appropriate one to be taken
cognizance of by the Lok Adalat, the Court
shall refer the case to the Lok Adalat:

Provided that no case shall be
referred to the Lok Adalat under sub-clause
(b) of clause (i) or clause (ii) by such court
except
after
giving
a
reasonable
opportunity of being heard to the parties.

(2)
Notwithstanding
anything
contained in any cither law for the time
being in force, the Authority or Committee
organising the Lok Adalat under subsection (1) of section19 may, on receipt of
an application from any one of the parties
to any matter referred to in clause (ii) of
sub-section (5) of section 19 that such
matter needs to be determined by a Lok
Adalat, refer such matter to the Lok Adalat,
for determination:

Provided that no matter shall be
referred to the Lok Adalat except after
giving a reasonable opportunity of being
heard to the other party.

(3) Where any case is referred to
a Lok Adalat under sub-section (1) or
where a reference has been made to it
under sub-section (2), the Lok Adalat shall
proceed to dispose of the case or matter
and arrive at a compromise or settlement
between the parties.

(4) Every Lok Adalat shall, while
determining any reference before it under
this Act, act with utmost expedition to
arrive at a compromise or settlement
804 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
between the parties and shall be guided by
the principles of justice, equity, fair play
and other legal principles.

(5) Where no award is made by
the Lok Adalat on the ground that no
compromise or settlement could be arrived
at between the parties, the record of the
case shall be returned by it to the court,
from which the reference has been received
under sub-section (1) for disposal in
accordance with law.

(6) Where no award is made by
the Lok Adalat on the ground that no
compromise or settlement could be arrived
at between the parties, in a matter referred
to in sub-section (2), that Lok Adalat shall
advice the parties to seek remedy in a
court.

(7) Where the record of the case
if returned under sub-section (5) to the
court, such court shall proceed to deal with
such case from the stage which was
reached before such reference under subsection (1).] "

8.
From
the
aforesaid
specific
provisions of sub-suction (5) of Section 19
of the Legal Services Authorities Act,
1987, Lok Adalat shall have jurisdiction to
determine and to arrive at a compromise or
settlement of disputes between the parties
in any case pending before any court. (i)
case pending before any court, or (ii) any
matter
which
is
falling
within
the
jurisdiction and is not brought before it.

However, the Lok Adalat shall
not have any jurisdiction in a case which is
not compoundable.

9. Sub-section (1) of Section 20
provides that the matters as referred in
Section 19(5)(i) shall be referred to the Lok
Adalat only with the consent of both the
parties or on an application given by one of
the parties. After recording its satisfaction
that there are chances of settlement of
dispute through Lok Adalat or where the
court itself is satisfied that matter is
appropriate one to be taken up cognizance
by Lok Adalat, the court shall refer the case
to Lok Adalat. It is further provided that no
case shall be referred to Lok Adalat under
Clause (b) of Clause (i) or Clause (ii)
except
without
giving
reasonable
opportunity of being heard to the parties.

10. Sub-section (2) of Section 20
provides that the matters referred in Clause
(ii) of sub-section 5 of Section 19 can be
referred on an application made by one of
the parties after giving an opportunity to
the other party of being heard. Where any
case has been referred under sub-section
(1) and (2) of Section 20, sub-section (3)
provides that Lok Adalat shall proceed to
dispose of the case or the matter on the
basis of a compromise and settlement
arrived at between the parties.

11. Sub-section (4) provides that every
Lok Adalat shall, while determining any
case referred to it, shall be guided by the
principles of justice, equity, and fair play
and other legal principles with utmost
expedition to arrive at a compromise and
settlement between the parties.

12. Sub-section (5) provides that when
no compromise or settlement could be
arrived at between the parties, the Lok
Adalat shall be duty bound to return the
case back to the court from which the
reference has been received or disposal in
accordance with law.

13. Sub-section (7) provides that when
the matter is referred back to the court
10 All. Rajeev Jain. Vs. State of U.P. & Anr.
805
concerned, the court concerned shall
proceed in the matter from the stage which
was reached before the reference to Lok
Adalat.

14. Thus, from the specific categorical
provisions of Section 19 and 20 of the
Legal Services Authority Act 1987, the
matter which is pending before any court
and the same is compoundable can be
referred to Lok Adalat only (i) either with
the consent of the parties or (ii) on
application of any of the parties, after
giving an opportunity of hearing to the
other parties. Unless the parties agree and
arrive at settlement and compromise, no
award can be made by Lok Adalat. When
no award is made as there is no
compromise and settlement, Lok Adalat is
duty bound to return back the matter to the
court concerned from which the matter was
referred to the Lok Adalat.

15. In the instant case, the applicant
herein had filed a complaint case under
Section 138 of the NI Act, after complying
with the provisions of Section 138 and 142
of the NI Act, the statement of complainant
was already recorded. The matter was fixed
for arguments on summoning of the
accused. At this stage, on one occasion, the
complainant could not present himself to
the court concerned and subsequently
thereto, the Presiding Officer was on leave,
and, the complainant was also not present
and the matter was fixed for hearing before
the court concerned on 13.12.2017 for
arguments on summoning of the accused.

16. Since the accused, the opposite
party no.2 herein, was not summoned yet,
there was no occasion for him for making
any application for reference of the dispute
to the Lok Adalat, nor any such application
has been moved by him. Likewise, the
complainant, applicant herein, had also not
moved any application nor has given any
consent for reference of the matter to the
Lok Adalat. The court on its own motion,
without obtaining the consent of the
applicant herein and without any intimation
to the complainant, taken up the complaint
case filed by the applicant herein in the Lok
Adalat on 19.12.2017 and dismissed the
case for want of prosecution, without
following any of the procedure prescribed
under sub-section (5) of Section 19 and
Section 20 of the Legal Services Authority
Act, 1987. Even if the matter was taken up
in Lok Adalat when the parties were not
present, it is not permissible for Lok Adalat
to dismiss the case for non-presence of the
complainant. Rather, if the parties are not
present, it is the duty of the Lok Adalat to
refer back the matter to court concerned for
deciding the case on merits as has been
provided under sub-section (7) of Section
20 of the Legal Services Authority Act.

17. Thus, in the considered opinion of
this Court, it is apparent that the order
dated 09.12.2017 passed by the Lok Adalat
in the instant case is not sustainable under
any canons of law. Accordingly, the instant
application is allowed and the order dated
09.12.2017 is hereby quashed. The matter
is remitted back to the Chief Judicial
Magistrate, Etah, to decide the case in
accordance with law from the stage it was
referred and dismissed in Lok Adalat.

18. Before parting with in the instant
case, it is often seen that the judicial
officers are prompted to dispose of the
cases in the Lok Adalat without following
any of the provisions as noted herein
above. The instant case, is the gravest
example
of
such
irresponsible
and
unauthorized action on the part of the
judicial officer concerned while taking up
806 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
the matter in Lok Adalat. Thus, let a
warning be issued to the concerned Judicial
Officer in this regard so that he may not to
repeat such occurrence in future.
----------
(2025) 10 ILRA 806
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 29.10.2025

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE BRIJ RAJ SINGH, J.

Application U/S 482 No. 2818 of 2022

Connected with
Application U/S 482 No. 4638 of 2021
And
Application U/S 482 No. 5376 of 2021

Brijesh Kumar @ Brijesh Kumar Kashyap
...Applicants
Versus
State of U.P. & Anr. ...Opposite Parties

Counsel for the Applicant:
Sanjay Kumar Rao, Ravi Misra

Counsel for the Opposite Parties:
G.A., Anuj Kumar

Issue for consideration
Matters pertain to quashing of the entire
proceedings of Complaint Case u/s 406, 420,
467, 468, 471 and 504 IPC

Headnotes
Serious
allegation
against
the
applicantsinvolved in the sanction of loan amount of
Rs.8,00,000/- in the name of opposite party
no.2 -same was fraudulently withdrawn without
his knowledge on a loose cheque- where a
maximum limit of withdrawal of Rs.25,000/- is
provided-allegation
is
supported
by
the
statements of witnesses under Section 202
Cr.P.C-in a case involving offences for financial,
mercantile, partnership or similarly transactions-
serious allegation of fraud - certainly the
criminal proceeding can be launched and the
case should be tried-prima facie, the offence is
made
out-trial
is
required-Application
rejected. (E-9)

Case Law Cited
1. M/s Pepsi Food Ltd and another Vs. Special
Judicial Magistrate and others (1998) 5 SCC 749
2. Sunil Bharti Mittal Vs. Central Bureau of
Investigation, (2015) 4 SCC 609
3. Birla Corporation Limited Vs. Adventz
Investments and Holdings Limited and others,
(2019) 16 SCC 610.
4. Dharambeer Kumar Singh Vs. State of
Jharkhand and another, (2025) 1 SCC 392
5.
Parbatbhai
Aahir
alias
Parbatbhai
Bhimsinhbhai Karmur and others Vs. State of
Gujarat and another, (2017) 9 SCC 641
6. Central Bureau of Investigation Vs. Aryan
Singh and others, (2023) 18 SCC 399

List of Acts
Indian Penal Code

List of Keywords
Forgery; prima facie, the offence is made out;
case involving offences for financial, mercantile,
partnership or similarly transactions where fraud
has been committed; proper appreciation of
evidence

Appearances of parties
Counsel for Petitioners(s) : Vijai Vikram Singh,
Ripu Daman Shahi
Counsel for Respondent(s) : G.A.,Anuj Kumar

(Delivered by Hon'ble Brij Raj Singh, J.)

1. Since the common question of facts
and law are involved in these three
applications, therefore, they are being heard
and decided by a common judgement.

2. Application under Section 482
Cr.P.C. No.2818 of 2022 has been filed
seeking quashing of the entire proceedings
of Complaint Case No.37720 of 2021,
Sandeep Kumar Vs. State of U.P. and
others, arising out of Crime No.0649 of
2019, under Sections 406, 420, 467, 468,
471 and 504 IPC relating to Police Station
Ashiyana, District Lucknow as well as the