IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
Crl.MC.No. 1874 of 2010()
1. C.R.SOMAN NAIR, M/S.SOORYA TRADERS,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE
... Respondent
2. CHANDRAN PILLAI, CHANDRALAYAM,
For Petitioner :SRI.M.V.THAMBAN
For Respondent :PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
The Hon'ble MR. Justice V.RAMKUMAR
Dated :05/07/2010
O R D E R
* * * *V.*RAMKUMAR,*J.* * * *
* * * * * * * *
Crl. M.C. No. 1874 of 2010
*Dated,*this *the* day*of* * 2006
* * * * * * * * * * *
ORDER
The petitioner who is the complainant in S.T. Case No. 75
of 2009 on the file of the J.F.C.M. III, Mavelikkara, seeks to
quash Annexure A3 order dated 14-12-2009 passed by the
said Magistrate closing the complaint and acquitting the
accused/2nd accused on the ground that the matter has been
settled in the Lokh Adalath. The above S.T. case arose out of
a prosecution under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments
Act, 1881, involving a cheque for Rs. 70,000/-. On 13-11-
2009 the aforesaid case was taken up before the Lok Adalath
functioning under the Taluk Legal Services Committee,
Mavelikkara before which the complainant and the accused
agreed to settle the matter by the accused undertaking to pay
the cheque amount in three instalments. The first instalment
of Rs. 25,000/- was agreed to be paid on 13-12-2009,
Crl. M.C. No. 1874 of 2010 -:2:-
second instalment of Rs. 25,000/- was agreed to be paid on
13-01-2010 and the balance amount of Rs. 20,000/- to be
paid on 13-3-2010. The petitioner/complainant had agreed
to withdraw the complaint after receipt of the 3rd instalment.
However, on 14-12-2009 when the above case was taken
up before the Magistrate, the matter was closed and the
accused acquitted on the ground that the matter was settled in
the Lok Adalath on 13-11-2009. As a matter of fact, going by
the award passed by the Lok Adalath, the time for payment of
the 2nd instalment had not been reached and, therefore,
the case should not have been disposed of before the final
payment. According to the petitioner, the 2nd
respondent/accused did not pay the 2nd and 3rd instalments
and, therefore, Annexure 3 order closing the case on the
ground that the matter was sttled in the Lok Adalath was
illegal.
2. Eventhough the 2nd respondent was duly served he
has not chosen to enter appearance. This Court had called for
Crl. M.C. No. 1874 of 2010 -:3:-
a report from the Court below. As per letter dated 4-6-2010
the learned Munsiff who was exercising the jurisdiction under
the N.I. Act has stated that she passed Annexure A3 order
under the mistaken impression that the remedy of the
complainant for non-payment of the subsequent instalments
was to move the Munsiff’s court by filing an execution
petition. In the light of the decision of this Court in
Govindankutty Menon v. Shaji – 2010 (1) KLT 43 it is not
permissible for the Civil court to execute the award passed by
the Lokh Adalath in a prosecution under Section 138 of the
N.I. Act . Accordingly, Annexure 3 order is set aside and S.T.
No. 75 of 2009 is restored to file for being dealt with in
accordance with law.
Dated this the 5th day of July, 2010.
V. RAMKUMAR,
(JUDGE)
ani.
Crl. M.C. No. 1874 of 2010 -:4:-