JUDGE & JMFC, HOSAPETE IN CRL.MISC.NO.23/2018 AND CONSEQUENTLY TO DISMISS THE CRL.MISC.NO.23/2018 PENDING ON THE FILE OF ADDL. CIVIL JUDGE & JMFC, HOSAPETE. THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING: ORDER The petitioner has invoked the jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as the Cr.P.C., for short) and sought quashing of the order dated 09.07.2018 passed by the learned Additional Civil Judge and JMFC, Hosapete, in Criminal Miscellaneous No.23/2018 and consequently dismissal of the said petition.
2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. The respondent, in spite of service of notice, remained absent and unrepresented.
3. The petitioner was an accused in CC No.153/2014 pending on the file of the learned Additional Civil Judge and JMFC, Hosapete, facing trial for the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The respondent was the complainant in the said case. The said criminal case came to be referred to Lok Adalat for settlement. The petitioner and the respondent entered into compromise and filed a joint compromise petition. The terms of the said joint compromise petition are as under: JOINT COMPROMISE PETITION FILED ON BEHALF OF THE COMPLAINANT AND ACCUSED UNDER SECTION 147 OF NEGOTIABLE INSTRUMENT ACT. At the instance of elders and well wishers of the parties of both the parties, the above matter is compromised between the parties to complaint as per the following terms and conditions.
1. The accused admits the borrowing of loan amount of Rs.8,00,000/- (Rupees eight lakh) from the complainant on 30.05.2013 and issuance of cheque in question in favour of the complainant towards repayment of said loan amount of Rs.8,00,000/- (Rupees eight lakh).
2. The accused has agreed to pay a sum of Rs.7,50,000(Rupees Seven lakh fifty thousand) to the complainant within 24 months i.e., on or before 03.03.2018 from today i.e., 03.03.2016 as per this condition if the accused has paid Rs.7,50,000/- (Rupees seven lakh fifty thousand) to the complainant, the complainant has to report the same before this Honble Court.
3. If the accused fails to repay a sum of Rs.7,50,000(Rupees Seven lakh fifty thousand) to the complainant as agreed above, the complainant is at liberty to recover Rs.8,00,000/- (Rupees Eight lakh) which is due under the cheque in question from the accused with interest at 24% p.a. from 03.03.2016 till the realization of the reopening of the above said case.
4. Therefore it is prayed that, this Honble Court be pleased to dispose off the above case according to the terms of the compromise petition and pass such other orders in the interest of justice.
4. The Lok Adalat recorded the said compromise and disposed of the Criminal Case No.153/2014 in terms of the compromise.
5. The respondent to recover the agreed amount in the compromise, has filed Criminal Miscellaneous No.23/2018 under Section 421 read with Section 431 of Cr.P.C. The petitioner filed objections to the said petition and contended that this petition is not maintainable. After hearing the parties, the learned Additional Civil Judge and JMFC, Hosapete, passed impugned order dated 09.07.2018 holding that the petition is maintainable.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that as the matter is settled in Lok Adalat, the order passed by the Lok Adalat amounts to an award and it is a deemed decree and it has to be executed in a Civil Court under Section 33 of CPC. On that point, he placed reliance on the decision of the Honble Apex Court in the case of K.N. Govindan Kutty Menon v. C.D. Shaji reported in (2012) 2 Supreme Court Cases 51. In the said decision, the Honble Apex Court has held as under:
26. From the above discussion, the following propositions emerge:
1) In view of the unambiguous language of Section 21 of the Act, every award of the Lok Adalat shall be deemed to be a decree of a civil court and as such it is executable by that Court.
2) The Act does not make out any such distinction between the reference made by a civil court and criminal court.
3) There is no restriction on the power of the Lok Adalat to pass an award based on the compromise arrived at between the parties in respect of cases referred to by various Courts (both civil and criminal), Tribunals, Family court, Rent Control Court, Consumer Redressal Forum, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal and other Forums of similar nature.
4) Even if a matter is referred by a criminal court under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 and by virtue of the deeming provisions, the award passed by the Lok Adalat based on a compromise has to be treated as a decree capable of execution by a civil court.
7. A similar case came up for consideration before this Court in the case of Sri.Somashekara Reddy v. Smt. G.S. Geetha in Writ Petition No.23520/2018 disposed on 07.02.2020. In the said decision, this Court has referred to the decision of the Apex Court in Govindan Kutty Menons case (Supra) and has observed thus: 15.6. The Apex Court considered the objects of the LSA Act, the purpose of referring to the Lok Adalats, settlement there of as an alternative system of Administration of justice, etc., and by referring to Section 21 of the LSA Act as reproduced hereinabove held that there was a deeming provision for an award of the Lok-Adalat to be treated as a decree of the Civil Court. Hence, the Honble Apex Court referred to various decisions held that even if a matter was referred to Lok-Adalat by a Criminal Court under Section 138 of N.I. Act, by virtue of the deeming provision under Section 21 of LSA Act, the award passed by the Lok-Adalat based on a compromise was to be treated as a decree capable of execution by a Civil Court.
16. The said decision in Govindan Kuttys case does not in any manner relate to or restrict the invocation of Section 431 of Cr.P.C. there was no issue raised before the Honble Apex Court as regards if the complainant who had settled the matter before the Lok-Adalat could on default invoke Section 431 of Cr.P.C. or not in respect of a compromise arrived at in the Lok Adalat.
27. This Court, in the circumstances, is of the considered opinion that the complainant who settles the matter before the Lok-Adalat can either seek to execute the settlement as a decree before a Civil Court or proceed against the defaulting accused as per the applicable provisions of the Cr.P.C. The manner of exercise of the option could depend on the terms contained in the compromise entered into before the Lok-Adalat. If there is a term agreed that the complainant can enforce the compromise on default by resorting to Section
431 of Cr.P.C., the complainant would be well within his right to do so. If there is no such term agreed, then the award passed by the Lok-Adalat can only be enforced as a Civil decree in terms of Section 21 of LSA Act.
8. In view of the above said decision, the complainant who settles the matter before the Lok Adalat can either seek to execute the settlement as a decree before a Civil Court or proceed against the defaulting accused as per the applicable provisions of the Cr.P.C. The manner of exercise of the option could depend on the terms contained in the compromise entered into before the Lok Adalat. It is to be seen whether there is a term agreed between the complainant and the accused that the complainant can enforce the compromise on default by resorting to Section 431 of Cr.P.C.
9. On perusal of the terms of the compromise, the parties have not agreed that the complainant can enforce the compromise on default by resorting to Section 431 of Cr.P.C. Therefore, the complainant cannot enforce the compromise recorded by the Lok Adalat under the provisions of Section 431 of Cr.P.C. Therefore, the order passed by the learned Additional Civil Judge and JMFC, Hosapete, dated 09.07.2018 in Criminal Miscellaneous No.23/2018 is not sustainable in law.
10. In the result, the following order: The petition is allowed. The order dated 09.07.2018 passed by the learned Additional Civil Judge and JMFC, Hosapete, in Criminal Miscl. No.23/2018 is quashed. The respondent is at liberty to execute the settlement arrived at Lok Adalat in a Civil Court. Consequently, the Criminal Miscellaneous No.23/2018 is dismissed. Sd/- JUDGE