IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Cr.W.J.C. No.1171 of 2010 Ram Chandra Tiwary Versus State of Bihar & Ors. ---------------------------------- 5. 3.8.2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel no.6 on behalf of the State. The petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 2.5.2010 passed by Mega Lok Adalat, Muzaffarpur in connection with Complaint Case No.1567 of 2000 (TR No.1337/10) with respect to the offence under sections 147, 323, 324, 379, 504/34 of the Penal Code. By the order dated 2.5.2010, the Lok Adalat accepted the compromise and acquitted the accused persons of the aforesaid case. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that a petition for compromise was filed between the parties on 17th of March, 2007. However, the parties were not appearing on 2.5.2010 and, as such, the order dated 2.5.2010 deserves to be quashed. Learned Standing Counsel no.6 appearing for the State submits that the controversy as to whether the parties were appearing or not is a matter of record to be verified and to be considered by the Lok Adalat and not in a Writ proceeding. It is further submitted that the petitioner, if so aggrieved, could have filed an application for recall and not by way of writ application. Considering the submissions of the parties, the matter involves the controversy with regard to the factual aspect of the - 2 - matter as to whether the compromise accepted was rightly done or not. According to the petitioner, although a compromise petition was filed between the parties, but the day when the compromise was accepted, they were not present. These matters are to be looked into by the Lok Adalat itself and not in a Writ proceeding. In view of the above, I am not inclined to interfere with the matter. The writ application is, thus, dismissed. However, it will be open for the petitioner to approach the Lok Adalat for remedial action, if any. PNM (Shailesh Kumar Sinha, J.)