The Allahabad High Court has definitively held that awards passed by National Lok Adalats, even in criminal cases, are civil decrees and cannot be challenged through criminal revision under Section 482 CrPC. This ruling reinforces the non-adjudicatory nature of Lok Adalats and clarifies the exclusive constitutional remedy available to aggrieved parties.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
The present criminal revision arose from an award dated 11.12.2021 passed by the National Lok Adalat at Budaun in Criminal Case No. 117 of 2019, which originated from NCR No. 155 of 2015. The award was challenged by Ram Gopal through Criminal Appeal No. 17 of 2024 before the Additional District and Sessions Judge (Special Judge, EC Act), Budaun, which was dismissed on 15.02.2025. The revisionist then filed the present criminal revision under Section 482 CrPC before the Allahabad High Court seeking to set aside the Lok Adalat award.
Key Facts
- The Lok Adalat award was passed on 11.12.2021 in a criminal case referred for settlement
- The award purported to impose obligations on the opposite parties, including financial liability
- No settlement deed or compromise signed by the parties was annexed to the award
- The award was challenged via criminal appeal, which was dismissed on 15.02.2025
- The revisionist sought to invoke the High Court’s criminal jurisdiction under Section 482 CrPC to quash the award
Procedural History
- 15.01.2015: NCR No. 155 of 2015 registered
- 2019: Criminal Case No. 117 of 2019 initiated before Chief Judicial Magistrate, Budaun
- 11.12.2021: National Lok Adalat passed award in the referred case
- 2024: Criminal Appeal No. 17 of 2024 filed by Ram Gopal against the award
- 15.02.2025: Additional District and Sessions Judge dismissed the appeal
- 2025: Criminal Revision No. 3467 of 2025 filed before Allahabad High Court under Section 482 CrPC
- 17.03.2026: Hearing concluded before Justice Abdul Shahid
The Parties' Positions
For the Revisionist (Ram Gopal): Argued that the Lok Adalat award was illegal, passed without settlement, and amounted to an arbitrary exercise of judicial power. Contended that Section 482 CrPC empowered the High Court to quash such an order as an abuse of process.
For the Respondents (State of U.P. and others): Maintained that the Lok Adalat award, even if flawed, was a civil decree under the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987, and hence beyond the scope of criminal jurisdiction. Asserted that the only available remedy was a writ petition under Articles 226 or 227.
Relief Sought
The revisionist sought quashing of the Lok Adalat award dated 11.12.2021 and the order dated 15.02.2025 dismissing the criminal appeal, on the grounds that the award was passed without settlement and amounted to an illegal exercise of judicial power.
The Legal Issue
Can a criminal revision under Section 482 CrPC be maintained to challenge an award passed by a National Lok Adalat, even if no compromise or settlement was recorded by the parties?
Arguments Presented
For the Appellant/Petitioner
The revisionist relied on the procedural irregularity in the Lok Adalat proceedings, arguing that the award was passed without a signed settlement, thereby lacking the statutory foundation required under the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987. It was contended that such an order, masquerading as an award, was void ab initio and amounted to a criminal abuse of process, thus inviting interference under Section 482 CrPC. Reliance was placed on the principle that courts must prevent abuse of process and protect litigants from arbitrary adjudication.
For the Respondent/State
The State contended that any award by a Lok Adalat, regardless of procedural defects, is deemed a decree of a civil court under Section 21 of the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987. Citing Jalour Singh and Bharvagi Construction, it was argued that the only remedy available to challenge such an award is a writ petition under Articles 226 or 227 of the Constitution. The State emphasized that Lok Adalats have no adjudicatory power and their awards are not judicial orders but administrative records of compromise. Hence, invoking criminal jurisdiction was legally impermissible.
The Court's Analysis
The Court undertook a detailed examination of the statutory framework governing Lok Adalats under the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987, and the binding precedents of the Supreme Court. It reaffirmed that Lok Adalats are not courts of law but conciliatory forums whose sole function is to facilitate settlement.
"The Lok Adalat determines a reference on the basis of a compromise or settlement between the parties at its instance, and put its seal of confirmation by making an award in terms of the compromise or settlement. When the Lok Adalat is not able to arrive at a settlement or compromise, no award is made..."
The Court observed that the award dated 11.12.2021 did not contain any annexed settlement deed signed by the parties, rendering it legally non-existent as an award under the Act. However, the Court held that even such an irregular order, if purporting to be an award, retains the character of a civil decree and cannot be subjected to criminal jurisdiction.
The Court cited Shashwat Agrawal v. State of U.P. to reiterate that Lok Adalat awards, even if improperly passed, are treated as civil decrees and are not amenable to revision under Section 482 CrPC. It further relied on Jalour Singh v. State of Punjab and Bharvagi Construction v. Kothakapu Muthyam Reddy to establish that the exclusive remedy for challenging such awards is a writ petition under Articles 226 or 227, and that too on limited grounds such as lack of jurisdiction, violation of natural justice, or patent illegality.
The Court emphasized that permitting criminal revision against Lok Adalat awards would undermine the statutory scheme designed to promote alternative dispute resolution and create confusion between civil and criminal jurisdictions. It noted that the High Court’s inherent powers under Section 482 CrPC are meant to prevent abuse of process in criminal proceedings, not to re-examine civil decrees.
The Court also addressed the issue of limitation, noting that if the revisionist seeks to challenge the award via writ petition, the period of limitation may be computed under Section 5 and Section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963, to account for the time spent in the dismissed criminal appeal.
The Verdict
The criminal revision was dismissed as withdrawn, with liberty to the revisionist to file a writ petition under Articles 226 or 227 of the Constitution. The Court directed that certified copies filed with the revision be returned to the revisionist’s counsel after retaining photocopies on record. The revisionist retains the right to challenge the award before the High Court in its constitutional jurisdiction, subject to applicable limitation.
What This Means For Similar Cases
Lok Adalat Awards Are Civil Decrees, Not Criminal Orders
- Practitioners must not file Section 482 CrPC petitions to challenge Lok Adalat awards, regardless of procedural flaws
- Any challenge must be framed as a writ petition under Articles 226 or 227, not as a criminal revision
- Courts will dismiss Section 482 petitions against Lok Adalat awards as non-maintainable
No Criminal Jurisdiction Over Civil Decrees
- Even if a Lok Adalat award is passed without a settlement, it cannot be treated as a criminal order
- The absence of a signed compromise does not convert the award into a criminal proceeding
- The remedy remains constitutional, not criminal
Limitation May Be Extended Under Section 14
- Time spent in a dismissed criminal appeal challenging a Lok Adalat award may be excluded under Section 14 of the Limitation Act
- Practitioners must plead and prove bona fide prosecution in a court lacking jurisdiction
- Section 5 may also apply if sufficient cause is shown for delay in filing the writ petition
