Karnataka High Court
Ananth Kumar. S. C. vs Basamma @ Bindu on 11 October, 2018
Equivalent citations: AIRONLINE 2018 KAR 1175
R
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 11TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2018
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B.A. PATIL
CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO.274/2018 C/W
CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION NO.273/2018
BETWEEN:
Ananth Kumar S C
S/o. H. Chikkaranganna
Aged about 54 years
No.35, "Sri Srinivasa Nilaya"
Situated at 1st Main Road
7th Cross, Prashanth Nagar,
Bengaluru-560079
Present Address
No.10/6, 2nd Main, 6th Cross
Govindraj Nagar,
Bengaluru-560040. .... Petitioner
(Common)
(By Sri.Shivaraj.N.Arali, Advocate)
AND:
1. Basamma @ Bindu
W/o Ananth Kumar S C
Aged about 41 yrs
2. Akshith
S/o Ananthkumar S C
Aged about 21 yrs
2
3. Master Sanjan
S/o Ananthkumar S C
Aged about 16 yrs
Hence represented by his
mother Smt.Basamma @
Bindu
All are residing at No.17,
New No.3, 6th Cross, SVG
Nagar, Kaveri Pura,
Bengaluru-560079
4. H.Chickaranganna
S/o. late Hanumanthaiah,
Aged about 75 yrs,
5. Doddamma
W/o. H.Chickaranganna,
Aged about 60 yrs,
6. Srinivas
S/o.H.Chikkranganna,
Aged about 50 yrs,
All R-4,5 & 6 are residing
at No.35, "Sri Srinivasa
Nilaya", situated at 1st Main Road,
7th Cross, Prashanth Nagar,
Bengaluru - 560079
....Respondents
(Common)
(By Sri.A.V.Ramakrishna, Advocate for R1-3
R4-6 are served but unrepresented)
This Criminal Revision Petition No.274/2018 is
filed under Section 397 read with 401 of Cr.P.C., praying
to set aside the order dated 27.10.2017 passed in
Crl.A.No.1530/2015 by LXVIII Additional City Civil and
Sessions Judge, Bengaluru (CCH-69).
3
This Criminal Revision Petition No.273/2018 is
filed under Section 397 read with 401 of Cr.P.C., praying
to set aside the order dated 27.10.2017 passed in
Crl.A.No.801/2015 by LXVIII Additional City Civil and
Sessions Judge, Bengaluru (CCH-69).
These Criminal Revision Petitions coming on for
Admission, this day, the Court made the following:
ORDER
These Criminal Revision Petitions have been filed by the petitioner challenging the order dated 27.10.2017 passed by LXVIII Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru City (CCH-69) in Criminal Appeal No.1530/2015 and Criminal Appeal No.801/2015.
2. Heard the learned counsel for petitioner and learned counsel for respondent Nos.1 to 3.
3. It is the submission of the learned counsel for petitioner that the court below without there being any jurisdiction and opposed to the provisions of the Legal Services Authorities Act,1987 and has passed the impugned order which is not sustainable in law. He 4 further submitted that once the award has been passed before the Lok Adalat, then the said order is final and bound on all parties to the dispute and the said Section creates a bar to exercise any of the powers to settle or set aside the said award passed before the Lok Adalat. Ignoring the said aspect the impugned order has been passed. He also relied upon the decision of STATE OF PUNJAB AND ANOTHER VS. JALOUR SINGH AND OTHERS reported in AIR 2008 SC 1209 and submitted that the jurisdiction of the court is excluded under Section 21, if an award has been passed before the Lok Adalat. He also submitted that Section 21 puts a seal and it cannot be adjudicated and set aside in the law. He further submitted that if at all the matter which has been settled before the Lok Adalat, it has to be challenged under the limited power and it can be challenged through the writ petition not in other proceedings. On these grounds, he prays to allow these revision petitions and set aside the impugned order.
5
4. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent Nos.1 to 3 fairly submitted that the order of the trial court may be considered in accordance with law and an appropriate order may be passed in this behalf.
5. I have carefully and cautiously gone through the submission made by the learned counsel appearing for the parties and I have also gone through the contents of the petition and documents which have been produced on this behalf.
6. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner and 1st respondent are the husband and wife and petitioner Nos.2 and 3 are the children born from their wedlock. The 2nd respondent is the father of the 1st respondent, 3rd respondent is the wife of 2nd respondent and 4th respondent is the son of the 2nd respondent born to the 3rd respondent. In that light, petitioner -wife filed a petition under Section 12 of the Domestic Violence Act in 6 Criminal Miscellaneous No.317/2011 alleging that the Respondent No.1 has been deserted and failed to provide maintenance during the pendency of the said petition. The 1st respondent offered to pay a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- for their maintenance and to settle the matter and accordingly a joint memo was prepared and when it is being presented before the Learned Metropolitan Magistrate, Traffic Court-V, Bengaluru, the same has been accepted and settled before the Lok Adalat held on 30.09.2015 and in the said lok adalat the following order has been passed:-
"Both the parties present. Both the Advocates present. Joint memo of compromise filed. The contents of the joint memo read over to the parties. The parties agreed to the same. The Compromise is accepted. In view of compromise the petition stands disposed off in terms of joint memo. Petitioners acknowledged the receipt of five lakhs in cash from the respondent No.1. Joint memo shall be part and parcel of this award."
7. It is the contention of the wife that the said joint memo which has been filed is without her 7 knowledge and a fraud has been played with her and subsequently she came to know that she has been mislead by the respondent and as such an appeal was preferred before the Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru to set aside the said order. The said trial Court after hearing the learned counsel appearing for the parties, accepted the arguments and allowed the appeal and consequently the order dated 30.09.2015 on the joint memo filed was set aside.
8. I feel that it is not just and proper to discuss the matter in detail with regard to the facts of the case are concerned. Only point which has to be considered in this case is whether the compromise entered into between the parties before the Lok Adalat can be set aside by the First Appellate Court. For the purpose of brevity, I quote Section 21 of Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987 which reads as under:-
"Section 21-Award of Lok Adalat-[(1) Every award of the Lok Adalat shall be deemed to be a decree of a civil court or, as the case may be, 8 an order of any other court and where a compromise or settlement has been arrived at, by a Lok Adalat in a case referred to it under sub-section (1) of section 20, the court-free paid in such case shall be refunded in the manner provided under the Court Fees Act, 1870 (7 of 1870)]".
9. On going through the said Section, it makes it very clear that every award of Lok Adalat shall deem to be a decree by a Civil Court and an order of Lok Adalat shall be final and binding on all the parties to the dispute and no appeal shall lie to any Court against the said award, it makes it very clear that any settlement arrived before the Lok Adalat it cannot be challenge before any other forum. In this behalf except for a limited purpose challenge under article 226 or 227 of Constitution of India. Admittedly, the records clearly goes to show that a joint memo has been filed by the parties and by order dated 30.09.2015 that the compromise entered into has been accepted and in terms of the compromise the petition filed under the Domestic Violence Act has been disposed of, that itself clearly goes to show that the said order of the Lok Adalat 9 covers under Section 20 of the Act and as per Section 21(2) of the Act, it is very clear that the said award and the award bounds on all parties and no appeal shall lie against the award. The trial court without considering the said fact has entertained the said appeal and has erroneously without application of mind has set aside, even the said proposition of law has been also laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the STATE OF PUNJAB AND ANOTHER VS. JALOUR SINGH AND OTHERS (quoted supra) at paragraph No.12 it has been observed as under:-
"12. It is true that where an award is made by the Lok Adalat in terms of a settlement arrived at between the parties (which is duly signed by parties and annexed to the award of the Lok Adalat), it becomes final and binding on the parties to the settlement and becomes executable as if it is a decree of a civil court, and no appeal lies against it to any court. If any party wants to challenge such an award based on settlement, it can be done only by filing a petition under Article 226 and/or Article 227 of the Constitution, that too on very limited grounds. But where no compromise or settlement is signed by the parties and the order of the Lok Adalat does not refer to any settlement, but directs the respondent to either 10 make payment if it agrees to the orders, or approach the High Court for disposal of appeal on merits, if it does not agree, is not an award of the Lok Adalat. The question of challenging such an order in a petition under Article 227 does not arise. As already noticed, in such a situation, the High Court ought to have heard and disposed of the appeal on merits".
10. On going through the said proposition of law, it is clear that if any party wants to challenge the said award based on settlement it can be done by filing a petition under Section 226 and 227 of Constitution of India, that too on very limited ground, but no appeal and other proceedings are maintainable in this behalf. In the light of proposition of law and ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court, the impugned order of the court below is not sustainable in law and the same is liable to be set aside. But, however, the opportunity given to the parties to file an appropriate proceedings under article 226 and 227 of Constitution of India, if they have agreed by the compromise entered into as per the order dated 30.09.2015. Accordingly, these Criminal Revision 11 Petitions are allowed. The orders passed by the LXVIII Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru City (CCH-69) in Criminal Appeal No.1530/2015 and Criminal Appeal No.801/2015, both dated 27.10.2017 are set aside.
Consequently, applications I.A.No.1/2018 for stay in Criminal Revision Petition No.274/2018 and I.A.No.2/2018 for stay in Criminal Revision Petition No.273/2018 are dismissed as they do not survive for consideration.
Sd/-
JUDGE KPS