IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN MONDAY, THE 26TH JULY 2010 / 4TH SRAVANA 1932 CRL.MC.NO. 2914 OF 2010() ------------------------- {CRMP.2539/2009 OF SESSIONS COURT, KOLLAM} .................... PETITIONER(S): --------------- SUGATHAN R.,S/O.RAGHAVA PANIKKAR, PUTHEN PURAYIL VEEDU, PRAKKULAM P.O.,KOLLAM. BY ADV. SRI.K.S.MANU (PUNUKKONNOOR) SRI.P.SREEKUMAR RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM 2. MARCY,W/O.VALERIYAN, MELETHODIYIL VEEDU LEKSHAM VEEUD, PRAKKULAM CHERRY, THRIKKARUVA VILLAGE, KOLLAM. R1 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SMT.SMITHA SUKUMARAN THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 26/07/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, J. ------------------------------------------------- Crl.M.C.No.2914 of 2010 ------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 26th day of July, 2010 O R D E R The complainant in a complaint filed under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act {for short 'the Act'} has filed the above petition challenging the order of the Sessions Judge, Kollam in Crl.M.P.No.2539/09. His complaint against the respondent was referred to the Lok Adalat by the magistrate and on such reference, the parties settled the disputes by which the respondent/accused agreed to pay the amount covered by the cheque in instalments. The award of the Adalat incorporating the settlement effected by the parties was returned with the records of the case and thereupon, the learned magistrate Crl.M.C.No.2914 of 2010 :: 2 :: passed Annexure A2 order acquitting the accused under Section 257 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 2. Long thereafter, challenging Annexure A2 order, the petitioner herein filed a revision, with a petition to condone delay of 389 days in moving such revision. His case, in brief, was that despite the settlement effected, which provided for payment of instalments of the amount covered by the cheque, no amount was paid by the respondent/accused and thereby the terms of the settlement had been violated. Absence of the respondent from the station alleging that she had gone abroad seeking employment and has returned to the station only now, was canvassed for condoning the delay in moving the revision. The learned Sessions Judge was not satisfied with the ground canvassed for condoning the delay in filing the revision. Therefore, the delay condonation petition was dismissed and consequently, the revision was also Crl.M.C.No.2914 of 2010 :: 3 :: dismissed. The petitioner has filed the present petition challenging the order dismissing the petition moved to condone the delay. 3. Perusing the impugned order passed by the court below, with reference to the facts and circumstances presented, I find, no interference is called for. Even assuming that the petitioner has sufficient cause for condoning the delay, the larger question to be examined is whether a revision, in the given facts of the case, was entertainable under law. Parties have settled the dispute covered by the complaint before the Lok Adalat with the respondent agreeing to pay the cheque amount in instalments. That agreement entered into in the Adalat is not under challenge. Acceptance of that award passed by the Lok Adalat and closing of the proceedings by Annexure A2 order is sought to be assailed in the revision with a petition to condone delay. Crl.M.C.No.2914 of 2010 :: 4 :: 4. When an award has been passed at the Lok Adalat, nothing more is required to be done by the megistrate. The order of acquittal by Annexure A2 order is only a consequence following the settlement arrived at by the parties. Since the settlement effected by the parties in the Adalat is based on a criminal complaint, it is true, the petitioner may not be able to enforce it as a decree of a civil court. But the terms of the agreement entered thereon if violated would enable the petitioner to seek appropriate remedies before a civil court in accordance with law, provided, the right to sue for the relief thereof is not barred by limitation. Whatever that be, challenge against Annexure A2 order passed by the learned magistrate, in the light of the settlement arrived at in the Lok Adalat, as reflected in the award passed by that authority, in the given facts, is not open to challenge by way of a revision before the Sessions Court under Section 397 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Crl.M.C.No.2914 of 2010 :: 5 :: So much so, I find, the above petition lacks merits and is liable to be dismissed. Petition is dismissed, reserving the right of the petitioner, if any, to seek appropriate reliefs, as provided by law, with reference to the agreement covered by the award passed by the Lok Adalat. Sd/- (S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN) JUDGE sk/- //true copy// P.S. To judge.