Sri. M. Vijay Nayak vs M/S. Sri Sai Book Manufacturers
2021 Latest Caselaw 1531 Kant

                                 Crl.R.P.No.909/2017

                        1


                                                       R
 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

    DATED THIS THE 4TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2021

                     BEFORE

       THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE K.S.MUDAGAL

    CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION No.909/2017

BETWEEN:

SRI M VIJAY NAYAK
S/O MUNIYAPPA
AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS
12TH CROSS
S R S NURSERY PRIMARY AND
HIGH SCHOOL
OPP. TO REBOCK SHOW ROOM
WILSON GARDEN
SHANTHINAGAR
BENGALURU-560 027                   ... PETITIONER

(BY SRI. N.RAVINDRANATH KAMATH, ADV.)

AND:

M/S SRI SAI BOOK
MANUFACTURERS
NO.732/3, 1ST CROSS
DODDAKALLASANDRA
KANAKAPURA MAIN ROAD
BENGALURU - 560 078
REPRESENTED BY ITS
PROPRIETOR
SRI S. SATEESH                    ... RESPONDENT

(BY SRI B.A. CHANDRASHEKAR, ADV. FOR
    SRI J.M. UMESH MURTHY, ADV. )

    THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION IS FILED
UNDER SECTION 397 READ WITH SECTION 401 OF
                                        Crl.R.P.No.909/2017

                            2



CR.P.C. PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED
25.05.2017   PRODUCED    AT   ANNEXURE-C   IN
C.C.NO.31119/2014 ON THE FILE OF XX A.C.M.M.,
BENGALURU CITY.

    THIS CRIMINAL REVISION PETITION COMING ON
FOR HEARING THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE
FOLLOWING:

                        ORDER

Heard both side.

The above revision petition is filed by the

accused challenging the order of the XX Additional

Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru dated

25.05.2017 in C.C.No.31119/2014.

2. In C.C.No.31119/2014, respondent was

the complainant and the petitioner was the accused.

Respondent prosecuted the petitioner in the said

case for the offence punishable under Section 138 of

the Negotiable Instruments Act.

3. When the matter was pending before the

Trial Court, on the request of the parties, the Court

referred the matter to the Lok-adalat. The petitioner Crl.R.P.No.909/2017

and the respondent entered into a settlement before

lok-adalat on 14.02.2015.

4. Admitting the settlement entered into

between the parties, the lok-adalat passed the

following award:

"Accused shall pay amount of Rs.27,35,279/- (Rupees twenty seven lakh thirty five thousand and two hundred and seventy nine only) on or before 15.06.2015 towards the entire amount with respect to seven cheque issued by the accused in favour of the complainant. In default to pay, complainant is at liberty to file a recovery proceedings as if fine. Accordingly, case is closed. Accused is discharged for the offence punishable U/s. 138 of N.I. Act."

5. The petitioner filed Crl.P.No.3851/2015

before this Court under Section 482 of Cr.P.C.,

seeking quashing of the lokadalath award dated

14.02.2015. This Court, vide detailed order dated

22.02.2017, dismissed the said petition on merits.

That order has attained finality.

Crl.R.P.No.909/2017

6. Even after dismissal of

Crl.P.No.3851/2015, petitioner did not pay the

agreed amount. Therefore, the respondent sought to

execute the lokadalath award before the Trial Court.

On his application, the Trial Court by the impugned

order dated 25.04.2017 issued Fine Levy Warrant

against the petitioner.

7. This matter was already once disposed of

by order dated 16.01.2021. On the application of the

petitioner seeking opportunity of hearing was recalled

and the matter was heard again.

8. Sri.N.Ravindranath Kamath, learned

counsel for the petitioner submits that an award

passed by the lok-adalat is deemed to be a decree of

Civil Court by virtue of Section 21 of the Legal

Services Authorities Act. Therefore, the only remedy

of the respondent was to execute the said award by

filing petition under Order XXI of CPC.

Crl.R.P.No.909/2017

9. Learned counsel for the petitioner

submits that in the cases filed in the lok-adalat

awards passed in his favour he has filed the

execution petitions before the Civil Courts and has

submitted the copies of the said proceedings.

10. In support of his contentions, he relies

upon the following judgments:

(i) K.N.Govindan Kutty Menon vs. C.D.

Shaji1

(ii) Bhargavi Constructions and another vs. Kothakapu Muthyam Reddy and others2

11. Per contra, Sri. B.A.Chandrashekar

learned counsel for the respondent justifies the

impugned order on the ground that in the agreement

as well as in the award of the lokadalath there is a

specific clause enabling the respondent to enforce the

award and seek recovery of the amount due as fine.

He further submits that Section 21 of the Legal

Services Authorities Act or the judgment in Govindan

(2012) 2 SCC 51

(2018) 13 SCC 480 Crl.R.P.No.909/2017

Kutty Menon's case do not bar the respondent to

recover the amount due under the award following

the procedure prescribed under the criminal

procedure code. He further submits that such

interpretation of the judgment in Govindan Kutty

Menon's case is incorrect. He submits that, since the

lok-adalat award has attained finality, the petitioner

cannot go behind that to claim that the respondent

cannot recover the amount as fine.

12. Having regard to the rival contentions the

questions that arise for consideration are "whether

Section 21 of the Legal Services Authorities Act or the

judgment in Govindan Kutty Menon's case bar the

respondent from seeking recovery of the dues as fine

and the Trial Court from issuing process for recovery

of the same." ?

13. Section 21 of the Legal Services

Authorities Act reads as follows:

"21. Award of Lok Adalat.-- [(1) Every award of the Lok Adalat shall be deemed to Crl.R.P.No.909/2017

be a decree of a civil court or, as the case may be, 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).] (2) Every award made by a Lok Adalat shall be final and binding on all the parties to the dispute, and no appeal shall lie to any court against the award.

14. The above provision makes it clear that it

provides for deeming the award of the lok-adalat as a

decree of a Civil Court, as well as an order of any

other Court, that means the Court which referred the

matter to lok-adalat. In the case on hand, the matter

was referred to lok-adalat by criminal Court.

Therefore, by virtue of Section 21 of Legal Services

Authorities Act, the lok-adalat award becomes the

order of the said Court.

Crl.R.P.No.909/2017

15. In Govindan Kutty Menon's case, in a case

involving the offence under Section 138 of the N.I.

Act, the matter was referred to lok-adalat and the

lok-adalat award was passed. The beneficiary of the

award filed an application in the very same criminal

case to execute the award. The Trial Court dismissed

the application holding that award passed by the

lokadalath on reference from the Magistrate Court

cannot be construed as a decree executable by the

Civil Court. There the question was whether an

award passed on reference from the Magistrate's

Court (criminal Court) could be executed invoking

Section 21 of the Legal Services Authorities Act.

16. The Hon'ble Supreme Court interpreting

Section 21 of the Legal Services Authorities Act held

that even a matter referred by a criminal Court is

covered under Section 21 and award passed on such

reference also can be executed. Nowhere in the

judgment, the Hon'ble Supreme Court said that the Crl.R.P.No.909/2017

criminal Court is barred from executing the award

passed on its reference or in such case only order

XXI CPC applies. Ultimately, in para 27 of the

judgment, the Hon'ble Supreme Court remanded the

matter to the Trial Court directing to restore the

execution petition and to proceed further in

accordance with law.

17. Then what is the law applicable is the

question. For recovery of the fine by a criminal Court,

the enabling provision is Section 421 of Cr.P.C.

Section 421 of Cr.P.C. empowers the Court passing

the order of sentence to issue Fine Levy Warrant for

recovery of the fine amount, if the offender fails to

pay the fine. Section 143 of the Negotiable

Instruments Act 1881 ('the NI Act' for short) also

states that offence under Section 138 of NI Act shall

be tried as per Sections 262 to 265 of Cr.P.C.

Therefore, the Trial Court was justified in issuing the

Fine Levy Warrant invoking Section 421 of Cr.P.C.

Crl.R.P.No.909/2017

By such of its action in the considered opinion of this

Court the Trial Court in no way transgressed the

judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Govindan

Kutty Menon's case. Therefore, the judgment in

Bhargavi Construction's case and Article 141 of the

Constitution do not in any way advance the case of

the petitioner.

18. The contention that the petitioner has

filed execution petition before the City Civil Court to

execute the similar award passed in his favour,

therefore that becomes precedent for respondent,

deserves no merit. Merely because he has opted for

such course, he cannot compel others to follow the

same, that too when award itself enables the

respondent to recover that as fine amount.

19. Learned counsel for the respondent

submits that the petitioner on voluntarily entering

into a settlement is taking 'U' turn on vexatious

contentions and since 2014, unnecessarily Crl.R.P.No.909/2017

persecuting the respondent. He submits that such

action of the petitioner lacks bonafides and amounts

to abuse of the process of the Court. Having regard

to the above discussions, this Court finds sufficient

force in the said submission. Therefore, the petition

is dismissed with cost of Rs.5,000/-.

Sd/-

JUDGE

KG