Jayamma N. vs Shankar R.

N. Ananda, J.—The petitioner was the accused in C.C. No. 26459/2012 and the respondent was the complainant. On 16.05.2013, the trial court accepted the settlement arrived between parties before the Lok Adalat in terms of the following order;-

"Perused office note and advancement application.

Heard by counsel for the accused.

By allowing the advancement application, this case is taken up on today''s board.

The counsel for the accused and complainant are present and filed memo by the counsel for the accused stating that the accused now ready to pay Rs. 25,000.00 and further undertake to pay remaining amount within 20.05.2013. Further stating that the accused is physically handicapped and her father-in-law was died on 19.04.2013 and she is Govt. employee, if conviction warrant is not recalled, she will be put to great hardship, otherwise no hardship will be caused to the complainant and he pray to allow the memo.

Further counsel for the complainant strongly objected to allow the memo and recall the conviction warrant and FLW. Further he refused to received Rs. 25,000.00 and he pray to dismiss the memo.

Heard both sides and perused the entire records. After perusal of the same, the case settled u/s. 147 N.I. Act before the Lok Adalath. According to compromise, the accused is due for Rs. 11,00,000-00, in default she has to undergo S.I. for 2 Years. In view of the non-payment, this Court was issued conviction warrant and FLW and the same was executed and produced before this Court. At present her husband is also present before this Court and he submits that he undertake to pay the further balance amount on or before 20.05.2013. On seeing the accused, she is physically handicapped lady, she submits that she was Govt. employee in BEML, KGF, Kolar as Accountant. By taking into above, if she sent to the Jail, she will loose her employment and also to take action under disciplinary by her employer, it will great inconvenience to the accused. But she did not comply the order of this Court. By taking into consideration and keep in mind of this Court, the FLW and conviction warrant is to be recalled with subjected to payment of further balance amount on or before 20.05.2013, otherwise hardship caused to the complainant. Therefore, in the above circumstances, it is just and proper I proceed to pass the following:

ORDER

Conviction warrant and FLW is hereby recalled with subjected to pay the balance amount within 20.05.2013.

Rs. 25,000-00 is permitted to deposit in this case as complainant refuse to take.

Further the counsel for the complainant is ready to receive the amount of Rs. 25,000-00. Hence permitted to receive the said amount.

After payment of the said amount, the accused is hereby released."

In the application filed by parties, it is stated:--

"The complainant and the accused respectfully submits as follows;

That the parties in the above case arrived for the settlement pertaining to the cheque amount of Rs. 14 lakhs.

Through settlement the complainant agreed to receive a sum of Rs. 11,00,000/- in total. The mode of payment is as follows;

a) 1st payment of Rs. 3,00,000/- will be paid on or before 31st March 2013.

b) the 2nd payment of Rs. 2,50,000/- will be paid on or before 25th April 2013.

c) the last payment of Rs. 5,50,000/- will be paid by the end of May 2013 without fail.

The accused undertakes that the abovesaid payments will be paid without fail to the complainant.

WHEREFORE under this terms and condition the above case may be disposed accordance with law at the end of justice and equity."

Thereafter, petitioner herein (accused) failed to pay the amount in terms of settlement arrived between parties and recorded by the trial court. Therefore, the trial court has issued Fine Levy Warrant against petitioner. The petitioner herein (accused) has challenged the settlement recorded by trial court in Criminal Revision Petition No. 25051/2013 and the order of issuance of Fine Levy Warrant.

Sri Kemparaju, learned counsel for petitioner submits that petitioner (accused) has not agreed for settlement. The advocate for petitioner (accused) was engaged at the instance of the mother of complainant. Therefore, entire compromise is vitiated.

As could be seen from records, the learned Members of Lok Adalat, as also learned trial Judge on verification of parties and the contents of compromise petition, which in fact is to the advantage of petitioner (accused) has accepted compromise petition. The complainant agreed to receive a sum of Rs. 11,00,000/- as against the cheque amount of Rs. 14,00,000/- on installment basis. There are no grounds to interfere with the settlement recorded by the trial court.

For the failure of petitioner (accused) to pay the amount in terms of settlement recorded between parties, the trial court has issued Fine Levy Warrant against petitioner (accused) for recovery of the amount, which in my opinion does not call for interference.

The petitions are dismissed.