IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 18TH DAY OF JULY, 2019 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JOHN MICHAEL CUNHA CRIMINAL PETITION No.8876/2015 BETWEEN:
SIDDESH RENUKA, S/O.B.R.RENUKA, R/AT 127, II MAIN ROAD, CHAMARAJPET, BENGALURU-560 018. ... PETITIONER (BY SRI.K.SHASHIKANTH PRASAD, ADVOCATE) AND:
DR. K. S. SATISH KUMAR, S/O. G. SHAMA REDDY, AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS, R/AT #1764, 20TH MAIN, II SECTOR, H.S.R. LAYOUT, BENGALURU-560 102. ... RESPONDENT (BY SRI.C.RAJANNA, ADVOCATE-ABSENT) THIS CRIMINAL PETITION IS FILED U/S.482 OF CR.P.C PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED 15.11.2014 PENDING ON THE FILE OF THE XII ADDL.C.M.M. AT BENGALURU IN C.C.No.6677/2014.
THIS CRIMINAL PETITION COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
O R D E R Heard learned counsel for petitioner. Learned counsel for respondent is absent.
2. Perused the records.
3. The undisputed facts are that the complaint filed by the respondent herein under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act was compromised before Lok Adalath and in terms of the settlement, liberty was given to the complainant to enforce terms of the compromise by initiating execution proceedings, as if it were a compromise decree.
4. The grievance of the petitioner is that even after the said order, the learned Magistrate has issued warrant and FLW to the petitioner for recovery of the amount.
5. The action taken by the learned Magistrate on the face of it is indefensible and contrary to the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in K.N.GOVINDAN KUTTY MENON vs. C.D.SHAJI reported in AIR 2012 SC 719 wherein it is held that: “in view of the unambiguous language of Section 21 of the Legal Services Authority Act (39 of 1987), every award of Lok Adalath shall be deemed to be a decree of the Civil Court and as such, it is executable by that Court.” In the said decision, it is held that 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 provision, the award passed by the Lok Adalath based on a compromise has to be treated as a decree capable of execution by a Civil Court. In the light of the above position of law, further action taken by the learned Magistrate in issuing arrest warrant and FLW against the petitioner is legally untenable and cannot be sustained.
6. For the above reasons, the petition is allowed. The impugned order dated 15.11.2014 and all further proceedings subsequent to the order/award passed by the Lok Adalath, are quashed.
Cs/-
CT:RG Sd/- JUDGE