Lok Adalat jurisdiction limited to settlement; it cannot use Section 256 CrPC to acquit on complainant non-appearance.

A National Lok Adalat acting on a referred complaint is confined to exploring compromise or settlement under the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987; if no settlement is reached, it must return the record to the referring court and cannot exercise criminal court powers. Section 256 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 is not available to the Lok Adalat, so the complainant's non-appearance could not justify stopping the proceedings and acquitting the accused. The impugned order was therefore without jurisdiction and unsustainable.

---

---

Issues: Whether a National Lok Adalat, when a complaint is referred to it for exploring settlement, could stop the proceedings and acquit the accused by invoking Section 256 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 on the complainant's non-appearance.

Analysis: The Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987 confines the function of a Lok Adalat to determining references with a view to bringing about a compromise or settlement between the parties. Its powers are limited to those conferred by the statute, including civil-court type procedural powers for the purpose of determination under the Act, and the power to make an award only where a settlement is arrived at. Where no settlement is reached, the record has to be returned to the referring court, which then proceeds from the stage at which the reference was made. The statute does not confer criminal court powers on a Lok Adalat, and Section 256 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 cannot be exercised by it. On the facts, the complainant's absence could at most justify returning the matter to the referring court; it could not justify stopping the proceedings and acquitting the accused.

Conclusion: The invocation of Section 256 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 by the National Lok Adalat was without jurisdiction and the impugned order was unsustainable.

---