HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.ESWARAIAH AND HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NOUSHAD ALI W.P.NO.15467 OF 2010 Dt.2.7.2010 Between: M/s.Maruthi Traders, rep. by its Proprietor, P.Mohan Raj ..Petitioner And The Presiding Officer, Lok Adalat-cum-XI Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate Court, Secunderabad and another ..Respondents HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.ESWARAIAH AND HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NOUSHAD ALI W.P.NO.15467 OF 2010 ORDER: (Per Sri Justice V.Eswaraiah) Petitioner questions the order, dated 12.8.2009, in C.C.No.415 of 2004 passed by the XI Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Secunderabad-cum-Presiding Officer, Lok Adalat. The aforesaid C.C. was filed by the 2nd respondent under Sections 138 and 142 of Negotiable Instruments Act (for short, the Act) for dishonour of a cheque said to have been issued and payable by the petitioner herein in favour of the 2nd respondent. It is stated that the said C.C. was referred to the Lok Adalat on the representation of both the parties and on the joint application filed by them expressing their intention to settle the matter before the Lok Adalat. Accordingly, the XI Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Secunderbad passed orders on 12.8.2009 in C.C.No.415 o 2004 as follows: “Both present. Settled in Lok Adalat. Heard. Hence case against accused is acquitted under Section 320(8) Cr.P.C.” Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the complainant/2nd respondent herein filed petition in Crl.M.P.No.714 of 2009 in the said C.C. under Section 22 of the A.P. State Legal Services Authority Act, 1995 read with Section 70 Cr.P.C. for issuance of warrant against the petitioner to execute the order for imprisonment as the accused has failed to make the payment. The perusal of the said execution petition discloses that the petitioner issued a cheque for the sum of Rs.7,96,817/- admitting his liability. But, when the cheque was presented, it was returned for want of sufficient funds on 15.10.2003 and when the cheque was again presented it was dishonoured for exceeding arrangement. Accordingly, after issuing notice on 5.2.2004 under Section 138 of the Act the said C.C. was filed. During the pendency of the C.C., it is stated that the matter was settled and the accused has filed an undertaking before the court saying that he would pay Rs.50,000/- on 3.12.2009 and clear the balance amount within three months. The petitioner did not pay the said amount and failed to comply with the undertaking filed before the court and therefore he has filed the execution petition. The petitioner has not filed the so-called copy of the undertaking. It is not known what happened before the criminal court in the said execution petition. Once the C.C. has been disposed of recording acquittal, we are unable to understand as to the material that was available in favour of the 2nd respondent herein for filing the said E.P. But, however, the petitioner makes several allegations stating that the filing of the said case in C.C. itself is false and he did not agree for any settlement before the Lok Adalat and on the pretext of closing the case and his signatures were obtained on empty stamped papers blindly believing the version of the 2nd respondent herein. It is stated that there was no conditional compromise from his side and he was not liable to pay any amount from his side and therefore the order of the Lok Adalat is bad and invalid and it is said to have been obtained by playing fraud. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the opinion that the said allegations made by the petitioner cannot be established in the writ proceedings. However, the perusal of the orders in C.C.No.415 of 2004, dated 12.8.2009, on the file of the XI Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Secunderabad, is in favour of the petitioner only, which recorded his acquittal. The perusal of the orders said to have been recorded by the Lok Adalat also indicates that the complainant’s petition to compound the case was allowed acquitting the accused under Section 147 of the Act. Without filing the copy of the so-called undertaking making serious allegations with regard to the undertaking said to have been taken by the 2nd respondent before the criminal court, the petitioner is not entitled to question the said order of the Lok Adalat. A plain reading of the order of the Lok Adalat does not indicate any illegality or infirmity. It shows that both the parties were present and on the joint application only the matter was referred to the Lok Adalat and after the Lok Adalat compounded the case, the criminal court recorded acquittal of the accused. Therefore, we do not see any justification on the part of the petitioner to question the said order of the Lok Adalat as well as the criminal court. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed at the stage of admission. ________________ V.ESWARAIAH, J. ________________ NOUSHAD ALI, J. 2.7.2010 kpr