Gadi Praveen Kumar, J.

1. Heard Mr.Mohd Hussain Shaik, learned counsel representing Mr.Mustafa Basith, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr.P.Shashi Kiran, the learned Standing Counsel for Telangana State Legal Services Authority appearing for the respondent No.1.

2. The Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to quash and set aside the Lok Adalat Awards dated 09.09.2023 passed in Lok Adalat Case Nos.153, 182 and 179 of 2023 as the same have been vitiated by fraud and procedural irregularities with a consequential direction to restore C.C.No.10 of 2020, D.V.C.No.1 of 2021 and Crl.M.P.No.135 of 2022 in M.C.No.4 of 2021 to their original status for adjudication on merits.

3. The petitioner herein is the complainant in C.C.No.10 of 2020, D.V.C.No.1 of 2021 and Crl.M.P.No.135 of 2022 in M.C.No.4 of 2021 on the file of the Junior Civil Judge, Narsapur, Medak District.

4. It is the case of the petitioner that her marriage with the respondent No.1 was performed on 08.08.2028, after marriage, she joined the society of the respondent No.2 at Jeddah, Saudi Arabia, where the respondent No.2 is working as Mathematics Teacher. Out of their wedlock, the petitioner was blessed with two children. Subsequently, due to family disputes, the petitioner returned to India along with her children and started living with her parents.

5. It is the further case of petitioner that she filed C.C.No.10 of 2020, D.V.C.No.1 of 2021 and M.C.No.4 of 2021 against the respondent No.2 and his family members before the Junior Civil Judge’s Court, Narsapur, Medak District, and during pendency of the said cases, the matters have been referred to the Lok Adalat resulting in passing of the impugned Awards on 09.09.2023, and the compromise recorded therein was obtained by fraud, coercion and misrepresentation.

6. Learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner contended that the Award passed by the Lok Adalat suffers from several procedural and substantive deficiencies as the respondent No.2/accused or his counsel were not present at time of Lok Adalat proceedings and their signatures were not obtained on the Awards, and that there were no explicit terms of compromises stated in the Awards.

7. Learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner contended that the petitioner agreed to refer the disputes before the Lok Adalat only on the representation made by respondent No.2 that he is willing to resume matrimonial life, provided the pending criminal and domestic violence proceedings are withdrawn. According to the learned counsel, the respondent No.2 made such false representations from the inception of the cases and was they were made only with an intention to induce the petitioner to withdraw the proceedings. Immediately after the Awards were passed, respondent No.2 failed to honour the assurance of reconciliation, thereby demonstrating that the compromise itself was founded on fraud.

8. Learned counsel further contended that the proceedings before the Lok Adalat suffer from serious procedural irregularities. It is submitted that respondent No.2 as well as his counsel were absent on the date of the Lok Adalat proceedings and that the awards themselves disclose that neither of them had signed the proceedings. By drawing the attention of this Court to the provisions of Section 320 Cr.P.C. corresponding to Section 359 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (for short ‘the BNSS’), 2023, learned counsel for the petitioner contended that even though Section 498-A I.P.C. corresponding to Section 85 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 (for short ‘the BNS’), is a not compoundable offence, the Mandal Legal Services Authority, Narsapur proceeded to pass the impugned awards.

9. Learned counsel further contended that the impugned Awards are obtained by playing fraud, which vitiates the entire proceedings as held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in S.P.Chengalvaraya Naidu Vs. Jagannath((1994) 1 SCC 1), and therefore contended that the impugned Lok Adalat Awards are liable to be set aside. Learned counsel further placed reliance on B.S. Joshi Vs. State of Haryana(MANU/SC/0230/2003).

10. On the other hand, learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondent No.1 contended that the impugned Awards are passed basing on the material available on record and the same do not suffer from any irregularities warranting interference by this Court.

11. We have given our earnest consideration to the contentions advanced on either side and perused the material on record.

12. The Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987 ( for short ‘the 1987 Act’) is enacted with the object of ensuring equal access to justice by providing free and competent legal services to weaker sections of society and by promoting settlement of disputes through conciliation and compromise. The institution of Lok Adalat is one of the important mechanisms introduced under the Act to facilitate amicable settlement of disputes between parties, thereby reducing unnecessary litigation and ensuring speedy justice. Unlike a regular Court, a Lok Adalat does not adjudicate disputes on merits. Its jurisdiction is confined to facilitating a voluntary settlement between the parties. The role of the Lok Adalat is only to persuade the parties to arrive at an amicable settlement and, upon such settlement being reached voluntarily, to record the terms thereof and pass an award in terms of the compromise. Therefore, the foundation of every Lok Adalat Award is the existence of a genuine, lawful and voluntary settlement arrived at by the parties themselves.

13. Section 19(5) of the 1987 Act states :

               “19(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 organized.

               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.”

Therefore Section 19(5) of the 1987 Act expressly provides that a Lok Adalat shall have no jurisdiction in respect of any case or matter relating to an offence which is not compoundable under any law. Similarly, Section 320 Cr.P.C. corresponding to Section 359 of the BNSS, specifies the offences which alone are compoundable. Admittedly, the offence punishable under Section 498-A IPC corresponding to Section 85 of the BNS does not fall within the category of compoundable offence. Therefore, the jurisdiction of the Lok Adalat must necessarily be exercised keeping in view the statutory limitation contained in Section 19(5) of the Act, 1987.

14. On careful perusal of the Awards passed shows that the signature columns meant for respondent No.2 and his counsel have been left blank. The Awards also do not record any specific terms of settlement nor do they refer to any written compromise entered into between the parties. Except recording that the matter stood settled, the Awards are completely silent regarding the nature of the compromise or the obligations undertaken by either party.

15. The petitioner has specifically contended that she agreed for settlement only on the assurance that respondent No.2 would resume matrimonial life. According to her, the assurance was only an inducement to secure withdrawal of the pending proceedings and was never intended to be honoured. Whether such allegation ultimately amounts to fraud or otherwise, is a matter which ordinarily requires evidence. However, in the present case, the absence of respondent No.2 during the Lok Adalat proceedings, the absence of any written compromise, and absence of any terms of settlement in the Awards themselves, lend considerable support to the contention raised by the petitioner that the settlement was not the outcome of a free and informed consensus.

16. Therefore, this Court is of the considered opinion that the impugned Awards cannot be sustained in law as the settlement recorded before the Lok Adalat does not satisfy the essential requirements contemplated under the 1987 Act. The Awards neither disclose the terms and conditions of the alleged compromise nor reflect that a lawful settlement was arrived at between the parties after obtaining their free and informed consent. The absence of the signatures of respondent No.2 and his counsel on the Awards and the absence of any written compromise, creates a serious doubt regarding the manner in which the settlement was recorded.

17. This Court also finds that the Lok Adalat acted beyond the jurisdiction vested in it under the 1987 Act. One of the proceedings referred to the Lok Adalat arose out of an offence punishable under Section 498-A IPC, which is admittedly a non-compoundable offence, as Section 320 Cr.P.C., corresponding to Section 359 of the BNSS, does not include Section 498-A IPC among the offences that are compoundable. In view of the express prohibition contained in Section 19(5) of the Act, the Lok Adalat ought not to have entertained such proceedings by passing an Award. The impugned Awards are therefore vitiated not only by procedural irregularities but also by a clear jurisdictional error.

18. Accordingly, W.P.No.11483 of 2025 is allowed, setting aside the impugned Awards passed by the Mandal Legal Services Authority, Narsapur, Medak District in Lok Adalat Case Nos.153, 182 and 179 of 2023 and restoring the said matters to its original file. The petitioner is at liberty to prosecute her grievance in accordance with law.

19. Miscellaneous applications, pending if any stand closed. No order as to costs.