Appeal allowed, National Lok Adalat decision overturned, case remanded for further proceedings.

The appeal is allowed, overturning the National Lok Adalat's order acquitting the accused under Section 256 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The case is remanded to the original court for further proceedings, emphasizing that the Lok Adalat's role is limited to facilitating settlements, not dismissing cases. The court clarifies the proper procedure when a complainant is absent and confirms the maintainability of the appeal under Section 378 of the Cr.P.C.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Jurisdiction and powers of the National Lok Adalat.
2. Applicability of Section 256 of the Code of Criminal Procedure by the Lok Adalat.
3. Proper procedure to be followed by the Lok Adalat when a complainant is absent.
4. Maintainability of the appeal under Section 378 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Jurisdiction and Powers of the National Lok Adalat:
The judgment elucidates that a Lok Adalat is organized under Chapter VI of the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987. Section 22 of the Act provides that the Lok Adalat shall have the same powers as a civil court under the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, for certain matters such as summoning witnesses, discovery and production of documents, and reception of evidence on affidavits. However, it is emphasized that the Lok Adalat is not a substitute for a regular court and its jurisdiction is limited to facilitating amicable settlements between parties. If no settlement is reached, the Lok Adalat must refer the case back to the court from which it was received.

2. Applicability of Section 256 of the Code of Criminal Procedure by the Lok Adalat:
The judgment asserts that the National Lok Adalat overstepped its jurisdiction by invoking Section 256 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to acquit the accused due to the complainant's absence. The court clarifies that the Lok Adalat does not possess the powers of a regular criminal court to dismiss a case or acquit an accused under Section 256 Cr.P.C. The Lok Adalat's role is limited to facilitating settlements, and if no settlement is achieved, it must return the case to the referring court.

3. Proper Procedure to be Followed by the Lok Adalat When a Complainant is Absent:
The court highlights that the absence of a complainant at a Lok Adalat session should not result in dismissal of the case or acquittal of the accused. Instead, the Lok Adalat should note the absence and refer the case back to the original court. The judgment references the Supreme Court's rulings in *Associated Cement Co. Ltd. vs. Keshvanand* and *Mohd. Azeem vs. A. Venkatesh and another*, which emphasize that a single absence of the complainant does not justify dismissal of the complaint or acquittal of the accused. The proper course of action is to adjourn the hearing or proceed with the case if the complainant’s presence is not essential.

4. Maintainability of the Appeal under Section 378 of the Code of Criminal Procedure:
The court dismisses the respondent's argument that the appeal under Section 378 Cr.P.C. is not maintainable. It is clarified that the impugned order by the Lok Adalat, which did not result in a compromise or settlement, cannot be treated as an award or decree. Therefore, the appellant was correct in filing the appeal under Section 378(4) Cr.P.C., as there was no award made by the Lok Adalat.

Conclusion:
The appeal is allowed, and the order dated 14.12.2019 by the National Lok Adalat, which acquitted the accused under Section 256 Cr.P.C., is quashed and set aside. The case is remanded back to the appropriate court to proceed from the stage it was referred to the Lok Adalat. The court reiterates that the Lok Adalat exceeded its jurisdiction and emphasizes the correct procedural approach in such circumstances. Pending miscellaneous applications are disposed of accordingly.

---