Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Office to take bond.

3. Thereafter, on 5.11.2016, both the parties along with their counsel appeared before the Lok Adalath and admitted the execution of the joint memos. The Lok Adalath accepted the joint memos and consequently, dismissed the individual complaints as withdrawn and the petitioners/accused Nos.1 and 2 were discharged of the offence punishable under section 138 of the N.I. Act. The order sheet reveals that on 23.12.2016, the cases were advanced on board at the instance of the respondent and the learned counsel appearing for the respondent/ complainant submitted that the cheques issued by petitioner No.2 in terms of the compromise dated 5.11.2016 came to be dishonoured. Based on this submission, learned Magistrate issued FLW to petitioner No.2 on 23.12.2016 returnable by

21.1.2017 and on 21.1.2017, issued NBW and FLW against the petitioner/accused No.2 "till she has been arrested and produced".

4. The petitioners/accused Nos.1 and 2 have now approached this court under section 482 of Cr.P.C., seeking to set aside the order dated 20.10.2016 and consequently, to quash the entire order sheet. It is contended that the respondent - a practicing Lawyer brought investment into the trade through the petitioners and in respect of the said transaction, the respondent retained several documents/cheques as security for the amount invested by him. As on 5.7.2016, the petitioners were liable to pay a sum of Rs.10,00,00,000/- and odd to the respondent. Due to demonetization and sudden slump in the market, the petitioners could not return the invested amount. The respondent utilized eight blank cheques lying with him and claimed Rs.41,31,98,976/- against the outstanding sum of Rs.10,00,00,000/- and odd and instituted private complaints against the petitioners. Even before the summons were served, the respondent being an Advocate by profession, forced the petitioners to appear before the Trial Court and admit the liability. The petitioners relented to the pressure exerted by the respondent through various means and appeared before the Court. The colleague of the respondent represented the petitioners and the petitioner No.2 was asked to sign the papers in the court. The seal of petitioner No.2 appearing in the vakalath was created by the respondent. The petitioner No.2 later realized that the cheques lying with the respondent were made use of to satisfy the claim of the respondent under the joint memos.

5. It is further contended that after the disposal of the cases, the respondent got the cases advanced and sought issuance of fine levy warrant on the ground that the cheques issued by the petitioners were dishonoured. It is contended that once the petitioners and the respondent settled the dispute before the Lok Adalath, the Trial Court has no jurisdiction to proceed with the matter. The award passed in the Lok Adalath is a decree of the Civil Court and therefore, the Court had no jurisdiction to issue NBW and FLW against the petitioners. It is further contended that the proceedings before the Trial Court and the consequent compromise are the results of force coercion exerted by the respondent. The joint memos filed before the Trial Court were not voluntary. Hence, the petitioners have sought to quash the impugned orders passed by the learned Magistrate.

11. In the above case, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has upheld the view taken by the High Court of Madras in the case of M/s.Valarmathi Oil Industries & Another vs. M/s.Saradhi Ginning Factory (AIR 2009 Madras 180) wherein, at the request of both the parties, the Magistrate referred the parties to Lok Adalath for settlement. Before the Lok Adalath the parties agreed for the settlement and the petitioner/accused agreed to pay Rs.3,75,000/- to the respondent/complainant on or before 3.9.2007. The Lok Adalath passed the award in terms of the compromise and the same was placed before the judicial Magistrate for further orders. Based on the award, the learned Magistrate found the accused guilty and convicted them under section 138 of N.I. Act. When this order was carried in revision to the High Court, the High Court held that the award made by the Lok Adalath is final and binding on the parties to the criminal revision and as contemplated under section 21(2) of the Act, no appeal shall lie to any court against the award. The High Court further held that in such circumstances, the learned Judicial Magistrate became functus officio, to decide the case after the award passed by the Lok Adalath. This view has been upheld by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of K.N.Govindan Kutty Menon. In the light of the ratio laid down in the said decision, the order passed by the learned Magistrate issuing NBW and FLW to the petitioners cannot be sustained. Even otherwise, the dishonour of the cheques issued by the petitioners pursuant to the compromise before the Lok Adalath furnished an independent cause of action for the respondent to proceed against the petitioners under section 138 of N.I. Act and therefore, the learned Magistrate could not have assumed jurisdiction either to reopen the case or to issue FLW and NBW to the petitioners for dishonour of the cheques which were not the subject matter of any complaint before the learned Magistrate. Therefore, viewed from any angle the order passed by the learned Magistrate being patently illegal and contrary to the law laid down in the above decision is liable to be set aside.