Uttarakhand High Court
Bharat Singh vs State Of Uttarakhand And Another on 5 August, 2025
Author: Pankaj Purohit
Bench: Pankaj Purohit
1
Judgment reserved on: 19.06.2025
Judgment delivered on: 05.08.2025
HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
Criminal Misc. Application u/s 482 No.2479 of 2023
Bharat Singh ......Applicant
Vs.
State of Uttarakhand and Another .....Respondents
Presence:
Mr. Nalin Saun, learned counsel for the applicant.
Mr. Shailendra Singh Chauhan, learned D.A.G. with Mr. Vikas
Uniyal, learned Brief Holder for the State of Uttarakhand/
respondent No.1.
Mr. Sandeep Kothari, learned counsel for respondent No.2.
Hon'ble Pankaj Purohit, J. (Per)
By means for the present C482 application, the
applicant has put to challenge the proceedings of Execution
Case No.11 of 2022 Manoj Singh Panwar Vs. Bharat Singh,
pending before the Court of learned Senior Civil Judge, New
Tehri, Tehri Garhwal, arising out of Complaint Case
No.1290 of 2021 Manoj Singh Panwar Vs. Bharat Singh,
pending before the Court of learned Chief Judicial
Magistrate, Tehri Garhwal, New Tehri, under Section 138 of
the Negotiable Instruments Act (hereinafter referred to as
'the Act'.
2. The brief facts of the case are that a monetary
dispute arose between the applicant and respondent No.2
during the course of business, where they were jointly
working as Contractors for performing certain civil works.
During the monetary dispute, applicant issued certain
cheques to respondent No.2, which got dishonoured, and
subsequently, complaints were filed by him under Section
138 of the Act against the applicant. Thereafter, respondent
No.2 and the applicant entered into a compromise in
National Lok Adalat, where applicant agreed to pay Rupees
Five Lakh to respondent No.2. However, due to non-
2
payment of the amount by applicant, respondent No.2
moved Execution Case No.11 of 2022 Manoj Singh Panwar
Vs. Bharat Singh, before the Court of learned Senior Civil
Judge, Tehri Garhwal, New Tehri, who passed orders for
attachment of property of the applicant and also issued
arrest warrant. Hence, the applicant is present before this
Court.
3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that
the applicant was not able to pay the agreed amount to
respondent No.2 due to severe financial crisis faced by him.
He further submits that the applicant does have an
intention of making the due payment to respondent No.2,
which could be clearly seen by his effort of making a full
payment of Rupees Six Lakh to another contractor, Ramesh
Singh Tomar.
4. Learned counsel for the applicant also submits
that the applicant is making genuine efforts for arranging
funds which was due to respondent No.2 and apart from
the present case, there is also another dispute to be settled
with respondent No.2, therefore, the orders of the learned
Executing Court will cause more hardships in arranging
the funds to be paid to respondent No.2.
5. Learned counsel for respondent No.2 filed his
counter affidavit and on the basis of it, he submits that the
applicant was required to make a payment of Rupees Ten
Lakhs to respondent No.2 on 17.01.2020, but, didn't pay
him on the pretext of COVID, despite receiving the payment
from the principal contractor. He further submits that the
applicant issued a cheque for the said amount after a delay
of 18 months on 04.08.2021, which got dishonoured, and
therefore, a complaint was filed by respondent No.2 on
09.11.2021. Thereafter, a compromise was reached
between the parties at National Lok Adalat, where the
applicant agreed to pay a reduced amount of Rupees Five
3
Lakhs Fifty Thousand (Rs.5,50,000/-) in two installments
i.e. Rupees Two Lakhs Fifty Thousand (Rs.2,50,000/-)
would be given in the month of February 2022 and
remaining amount of Rupees Three Lakhs (Rs.3,00,000/-)
would be given in the month of April 2022.
6. Learned counsel for the respondent No.2
reiterates that no amount was given in the month of April,
2022 and when contacted, no response came from the
applicant, which clearly shows that he never had an
intention to pay the amount. Thereafter, execution
proceedings were initiated against the applicant on
01.09.2022. He emphasizes on the fact that despite service
of notice on the applicant on 11.12.2022, he put his first
appearance on 19.04.2023 and didn't appear before the
Executing Court on several other subsequent dates, which
again displays reluctance of the applicant to pay the due
amount.
7. Learned counsel for the respondent No.2 further
contends that an execution order was issued on
08.12.2023 in the Execution Case No.11 of 2022 against
the applicant and an interim order dated 22.12.2023 in the
instant C482 application was also passed by a Coordinate
Bench of this Court directing the applicant to pay a sum of
Rs. Two Lakhs (Rs.2,00,000/-) within 10 days from the
passing of that order i.e. 22.12.2023, which again has not
been paid by the applicant.
8. Learned counsel for the respondent No.2 also
contends that the applicant owes money to three persons
and has settled the dispute with only one person named
Ramesh Tomar and this fact alone does not depict the
bonafide conduct of the applicant. He also submits that
respondent No.2 entered into the compromise for settling
the dispute for a sum of Rupees Five Lakhs Fifty Thousand
(Rs.5,50,000/-) instead of Rupees Ten Lakhs
4
(Rs.10,00,000/-), only after the assurance of receiving the
amount immediately. It is further contended by him that
after giving sufficient time and opportunities to the
applicant to pay the due amount, it is evident that he never
had a bonafide intention of making the payment. Hence,
the respondent No.2 is now pursuing the cause for getting
entire amount of Rupees Ten Lakhs. He also raised
objection to the maintainability of this application stating
therein that as the award passed by the National Lok
Adalat is deemed to be a decree passed by a Civil Court,
therefore, an application under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. will
not lie.
9. Learned counsel for the applicant filed his
rejoinder affidavit, in which, it is stated that the cheque
dated 04.08.2021 was given to respondent No.2 only for
security purpose and he had paid the entire amount to
respondent No.2, which is evident from the bank
transaction. He also submits that the applicant had
deposited a sum of Rupees Two Lakhs (Rs.2,00,000/-) by
way of demand draft before the learned Civil Judge, Tehri
Garhwal, New Tehri. He further submitted that the
applicant had cleared the amount of all three persons i.e.
Ramesh Tomar, Manoj Panwar and Rahul Panwar
(respondent No.2), which clearly shows the bonafide
conduct of the applicant.
10. Having heard the rival submissions made by
learned counsel for the parties, at the very outset, this
Court takes note of the fact that by virtue of Section 21 of
the Legal Service Authorities Act, 1987, every award of Lok
Adalat is deemed to be a decree of a civil court and the
same is final and binding on all parties to the dispute. The
said provision reads as under:
"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, an order of any
5
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-fee 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..."
11. In this regard, the observations of Hon'ble
Supreme Court in case of P.T.Thomas v. Thomas Job
(2005) 6 SCC 344 are also relevant, whereby it has been
held as under:
"...Award of Lok Adalat
20. The Lok Adalat shall proceed and dispose the cases and
arrive at a compromise or settlement by following the legal
principles, equity and natural justice. Ultimately the Lok
Adalat passes an award, and every such award shall be
deemed to be a decree of Civil Court or as the case may be
which is final.
Award of Lok Adalat shall be final
21. The Lok Adalat will passes the award with the consent of
the parties, therefore there is no need either to reconsider or
review the matter again and again, as the award passed by
the Lok Adalat shall be final. Even as under Section 96(3) of
C.P.C. that "no appeal shall lie from a decree passed by the
Court with the consent of the parties". The award of the Lok
Adalat is an order by the Lok Adalat under the consent of the
parties, and it shall be deemed to be a decree of the Civil
Court, therefore an appeal shall not lie from the award of the
Lok Adalat as under Section 96(3) C.P.C.
***
23. The High Court of Andhra Pradesh held that, in Board of
Trustees of the Port of Vishakhapatnam v. Presiding Officer,
Permanent, Lok Adalat-cum-Secy, District Legal Services
Authority, the award is enforceable as a decree and it is final.
In all fours, the endeavour is only to see that the disputes are
narrowed down and make the final settlement so that the
parties are not again driven to further litigation or any dispute.
Though the award of a Lok Adalat is not a result of a contest
on merits just as a regular suit by a Court on a regular suit by
a Court on a regular trial, however, it is as equal and on par
with a decree on compromise and will have the same binding
effect and conclusive just as the decree passed on the
compromises cannot be challenged in a regular appeal, the
award of the Lok Adalat being akin to the same, cannot be
challenged by any regular remedies available under law
including invoking Article 226 of the Constitution of India
challenging the correctness of the award on any ground.
Judicial review cannot be invoked in such awards especially
on the grounds as raised in this writ petition.
24. The award of Lok Adalat is final and permanent which is
equivalent to a decree executable, and the same is an ending
to the litigation among parties..."
12. As far as the applicability of Section 21 of
Legal Services Authority Act to an award passed in respect
of Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act is concerned,
the Hon'ble Apex Court in K.N. Govindan Kutty Menon v.
C.D. Shaji (2012) 2 SCC 51 has categorically held that an
award of Lok Adalat in respect of Section 138 of Negotiable
Instruments Act is to be treated as a decree under Section
21 of Legal Services Authority Act. The relevant
observations of the Court are as under:
"26. From the above discussion, the following propositions
emerge:
1. In view of the unambiguous language of Section 21 of the
Act, every award of the Lok Adalat shall be deemed to be a
decree of a civil court and as such it is executable by that
Court.
2. The Act does not make out any such distinction between the
reference made by a civil court and criminal court.
3. There is no restriction on the power of the Lok Adalat to
pass an award based on the compromise arrived at between
the parties in respect of cases referred to by various Courts
(both civil and criminal), Tribunals, Family court, Rent Control
Court, Consumer Redressal Forum, Motor Accidents Claims
Tribunal and other Forums of similar nature.
4. 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 provisions, the award
passed by the Lok Adalat based on a compromise has to
be treated as a decree capable of execution by a civil
court."
13. Therefore, this Court is of the opinion that this
Court lacks jurisdiction for challenging the impugned
proceedings under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. Accordingly, the
present C482 application is dismissed.
14. Interim order dated 22.12.2023 stands vacated.
15. Pending application(s), if any, also stands
disposed of.
(Pankaj Purohit, J.)
05.08.2025
PN
