ASHOKE DATTA, WEST TRIPURA Vs. STATE OF TRIPURA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD learned counsel, Mr. P. Roy Barman for the petitioner.

(2.) BY filing this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner challenged compounding of PRC Case No.1234 of 2011 in the National Lok Adalat held on 23.11.2013. The petitioner, a Junior Engineer, working in DWS Department of the Government of Tripura, a physically handicapped, lodged an FIR on 25.11.2011 before O/C, East Agartala PS alleging that on that day at about 10.30 am while he went to the office of the Chief Engineer of Water Resources, the Section Officer, Makhan Debbarma assaulted him physically with fists and blows, and as a result he, being a physically handicapped person fell down and received injury. He was taken to hospital and was treated there. Based on the FIR, East Agartala PS Case No.265 of 2011 under Section 324 read with Section 34 of IPC was registered and after investigation police submitted charge sheet and on the basis of the charge sheet learned Chief Judicial Magistrate on 26.03.2012 took cognizance of offence punishable under Section 325 of IPC and ultimately transferred the case to the Court of Judicial Magistrate, First Class(T. Debbarma), Agartala.

(3.) THE present petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is filed challenging the order of reference to Lok Adalat and the order of settlement on compromise in the Lok Adalat on the ground that the petitioner was not heard at the time when the reference was made and so, the very inception of taking up the matter in the Lok Adalat was wrong and violative of the provisions prescribed in Section 20 of the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987. It is submitted by learned counsel, Mr. Roy Barman that the petitioner is a physically handicapped person and he was always eager to proceed with the trial of the case for the punishment of the accused and was never interested to have a compromise. Had he was heard by the Court before the reference was made to the Lok Adalat he would not have given his consent for reference the case. In the Lok Adalat his signature was obtained in blank paper since he was put to surprise in the Lok Adalat and no valid consent was given by the petitioner for settlement of the case on compromise.