ORDER
R.S. Garg, J.
1. On 29-5-2000, the applicant/original complainant made a petition to the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Surajpur making a complaint that on her report Crime No. 88/98 was registered and after completion of the investigation a charge-sheet was filed against the accused Ramdas. It was further submitted that after submission of the charge-sheet the present petitioner was never noticed by the Court to appear before the Court and give her statements, According to her, somewhere in April, 2000 the accused again abused the applicant and informed her that he had produced some other woman in the Lok Adalat and got the complaint/case of the present applicant dismissed in the Lok Adalat on 25-4-99. In support of the application, an affidavit was filed
by the applicant. The applicant submitted that a fraud was played upon the Lok Adalat and the Court and the matter needed an inquiry.
2. Without issuing the notice to the respondent, the Court below required the applicant to lead evidence in support of the complaint. The applicant examined her ownself as P.W. 1 and also examined Dev Narayan as P.W. 2 and Om Prakash Tiwari as P.W. 3. It was submitted before the Court below that as the fraud was played upon the Court, the matter should be re-opened and the respondent be further prosecuted for playing a fraud. The Court below after referring to the facts, in the order impugned simply recorded that it has no jurisdiction to revise or review the order passed by the lok adalat and as the applicant has not stated before the Court that who was the woman who had impersonated her, the Court below was unable to record a finding in her favour.
3. Being aggrieved by the said order dated 9-12-2000, the applicant has come to this Court.
4. Shri Sushil Dubey, learned counsel for the applicant, submits that the manner in which fraud was played upon the Court would be clear from the application, affidavit and the statements recorded by the Court below. He submits that once the fact of fraud or fraud on Court was brought to the notice of the Court, no Court can say that it would have no jurisdiction to undo the wrong. He submits that the cursory manner in which the petition of the applicant has been dismissed requires interference of this Court in its revisional jurisdiction so also under the inherent powers.
5. Smt. Shastri, learned counsel for the non-applicant, submits that the matter was finally disposed of by the lok adalat, therefore, the Trial Court was justified in observing that it would have no jurisdiction to revise or review the order. She further submits that there is no evidence on the record to record a finding in favour of the applicant that a fraud was played upon the ‘Lok Adalat’ or the Court.
6. In reply to the above defences, Shri Dubey, learned counsel for the applicant, submits that a woman was produced in the Court and the son of the non-applicant identified her as the complainant. He submits that the facts which are unrebutted would clearly show that a fraud was played upon the Court.
7. I have heard the parties and have perused the record of the Court below.
8. There is no dispute before me that on 25-4-1999 the alleged compromise was recorded before the lok adalat and the accused was acquitted. From the records, it would clearly appear that the applicant came to the Court with the allegations that in April, 2000 the accused informed her that the matter was settled in the lok adalat. In absence of any evidence in rebuttal,
nobody can say that the prosecutrix-complainant had any other information of the alleged compromise. In view of her statements, the Court has to presume that she learnt about the fact in April, 2000 and filed the application before the Court in May, 2000, thus, there would be no delay.
9. So far as the correctness and validity of the findings of the Court below are concerned, this Court is constrained to observe that the Trial Court has neither followed the procedure nor has seen, the evidence which is available on the record. The Court below was required to see that whether the applicant appeared before the lok adalat or not. Instead of recording that finding, after misdirecting itself it had recorded a finding that the applicant failed to prove that which particular woman was produced before the ‘Lok Adalat’. In a case where the applicant says that she never appeared before the Court or the ‘Lok Adalat’, then the entire burden would be upon the other side who wants to draw benefit out of the order passed by the ‘Lok Adalat’. The Court below certainly was unjustified in observing that the applicant failed to prove that which particular woman appeared before the ‘Lok Adalat’.
10. So far as the question of jurisdiction is concerned, the catena of authorities says that a fraud shall not denude the Court of its powers of making any inquiry and if the fraud is established, in recalling the orders, which have been obtained after playing the fraud. Our judicial system has no scope for an argument that even if the final order is result of a fraud then the Court has to close its eyes and should say like an ostrich after closing the eyes that it would not look into the fraud played by the other side. The fraud and justice do not stand together. They are just like light and darkness. The moment light of justice enters the room the darkness of the crime, fraud and wrong has to vanish. In a case where the party comes to the Court and says that the fraud was played upon the Court, then the Court must become sensitive to such pleading and instead of taking a technical approach must consider that whether the fraud was placed or not. If it records a negative finding, then there is no problem but if it records an affirmative finding then it has to recall the earlier orders, put the parties of the case to the position where they originally were and take a further action against the person who undermining the authority of the Court has fiddled with the authority of the Court and played fraud with it. The unscrupulous people are always answerable in the Court. A person who has a right cannot be turned out of the Courts on the grounds which are not available in law.
11. A Court must see into the pleadings and the evidence brought on the record.
12. In the present case, the witness have stated on oath before the Court that the applicant/complainant did not appear before the ‘Lok Adalat’ nor she entered into any compromise. The three witnesses have also stated that in April, 2000 the non-applicant and his son shouted in the village that after
producing some other woman in the ‘Lok Adalat’ they got the matter dismissed. Neither the Court issued a notice to the non-applicant nor the Court itself had put any question, to these witnesses. The statements on oath could not be rejected simply on the ground that the petitioner has failed to give the details of the wrong doer or the imposter. The findings recorded by the Court below are contrary to records and perverse. If the order passed by the Court below is allowed to stand, it would leave a message to the public that after playing a fraud with the Court or in the Court a wrong doer can still escape the legal punishment. When the public reposes confidence in the Court, Judicial, Judges and the judicial system, then every Judge is required to show to the public that the judiciary is worth it and it would never fail the confidence reposed by the public in the judiciary and the system.
13. The order passed by the Court below is quashed. It is hereby directed that the Trial Court shall restore the present matter back to records, issue notice of the petition to the respondent and make an inquiry into the same. It shall give proper opportunity to the parties to lead evidence. If the Trial Court records a factual finding against the interest of the present applicant, then it shall reject the application but if it records a finding against the interest of the non-applicant, it shall recall the earlier compromise, shall also proceed in accordance with law against the non-applicant and would take him to task by further prosecuting him for playing a fraud upon the Court.
14. The petition is allowed.
15. Criminal Revision allowed.
