Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, B. Mallikarjun Reddy, proprietor of Sri Vinayaka Mines & Minerals, filed a writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India seeking to quash the entire proceedings in C.C.No.28077/2010 pending before the 15th ACMM, Bangalore. The case arose from a private complaint filed by the respondent, M/s. Tile Italia Mosaics Pvt. Ltd., for an offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, due to dishonour of a cheque for Rs. One Crore. After recording sworn statement, a criminal case was registered. The matter was referred to Lok-Adalat, where parties negotiated and filed a joint memo on 28.08.2010, agreeing to payment in three installments. The Lok-Adalat passed an order accordingly. The petitioner challenged this order in Criminal Petition No.6019/2010, alleging he was taken to the advocate's chamber and forced to sign papers. This petition was dismissed by the High Court on 20.04.2011. Subsequently, the petitioner filed another Criminal Petition No.7207/2012, which was dismissed on 27.01.2015 on the ground that the subject matter of the order impugned had already been considered. The present writ petition was filed thereafter. The court heard arguments from both sides. The court noted that the petitioner had earlier challenged the Lok-Adalat order and the subsequent proceedings, and those petitions were dismissed. The court found that the petitioner was attempting to re-agitate the same issues, which amounts to an abuse of the process of court. The court held that the writ petition is not maintainable and dismissed it with costs of Rs.25,000/- payable to the Karnataka State Legal Services Authority.
Headnote
A) Criminal Procedure - Lok-Adalat Settlement - Binding Nature - Section 138 Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 - The petitioner challenged the Lok-Adalat order and subsequent criminal proceedings on grounds of coercion, but earlier petitions were dismissed. The court held that the petitioner cannot re-agitate the same issues and the writ petition is an abuse of process. (Paras 2-4)
B) Constitutional Law - Writ Jurisdiction - Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India - Maintainability - The court found that the petitioner had earlier challenged the Lok-Adalat order in Criminal Petition No.6019/2010 which was dismissed, and another petition was dismissed as withdrawn. The present writ petition seeking to quash the entire proceedings is not maintainable as the issues have been concluded. (Paras 2-4)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the writ petition challenging the proceedings in C.C.No.28077/2010 based on a Lok-Adalat settlement is maintainable and whether the petitioner has made out any ground for quashing.
Final Decision
Writ petition dismissed with costs of Rs.25,000/- payable to the Karnataka State Legal Services Authority.
Law Points
- Lok-Adalat settlement is binding
- Writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 not maintainable against Lok-Adalat order
- Section 138 Negotiable Instruments Act
- 1881
- Res judicata
- Abuse of process of court
Case Details
2018 LawText (KAR) (10) 13
Writ Petition No.11335 of 2015 (GM-RES)
J.S. Halashetty (for petitioner), M.V. Devaraju (senior advocate for respondent), Beena Devaraju (advocate for respondent)
M/s. Tile Italia Mosaics Pvt. Ltd.
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India seeking to quash criminal proceedings in a cheque dishonour case.
Remedy Sought
Petitioner sought quashing of entire proceedings in C.C.No.28077/2010 pending before the 15th ACMM, Bangalore.
Filing Reason
Petitioner alleged that the Lok-Adalat settlement was obtained by coercion and that the subsequent criminal proceedings should be quashed.
Previous Decisions
Criminal Petition No.6019/2010 challenging the Lok-Adalat order was dismissed on 20.04.2011. Criminal Petition No.7207/2012 was dismissed on 27.01.2015 as the subject matter had already been considered.
Issues
Whether the writ petition is maintainable given the earlier dismissal of criminal petitions challenging the same Lok-Adalat order.
Whether the petitioner has made out any ground for quashing the proceedings.
Submissions/Arguments
Petitioner argued that the Lok-Adalat order was obtained by coercion and that the proceedings should be quashed.
Respondent argued that the petitioner had earlier challenged the order and the petitions were dismissed, and the present writ petition is an abuse of process.
Ratio Decidendi
A party cannot re-agitate issues that have been conclusively decided in earlier proceedings. Filing successive petitions challenging the same order amounts to an abuse of the process of court. The writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 is not maintainable when the subject matter has already been adjudicated.
Judgment Excerpts
Heard Dr.J.S.Halashetty, learned advocate for the petitioner and Sri.M.V.Devaraju, learned senior advocate for the respondent.
Respondent filed a private complaint in P.C.R. No.19348/2010 before the XV ACMM, Bangalore, for offences punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 pursuant to dishonour of a cheque for a sum of Rs.One Crore.
After hearing, this court, by order dated 20.4.2011 rejected the said petition.
This Court by order dated 27.01.2015 dismissed the said petition on the ground that the subject matter of the order impugned in the said petition had already been considered.
In the circumstances, this writ petition is dismissed with costs of Rs.25,000/- payable to the Karnataka State Legal Services Authority.
Procedural History
Respondent filed a private complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, which led to registration of C.C.No.28077/2010. The matter was referred to Lok-Adalat, and a joint memo was filed on 28.08.2010, resulting in a Lok-Adalat order. Petitioner challenged this order in Criminal Petition No.6019/2010, which was dismissed on 20.04.2011. Petitioner then filed Criminal Petition No.7207/2012, which was dismissed on 27.01.2015. Thereafter, petitioner filed the present writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India seeking to quash the entire proceedings.
Acts & Sections
- Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881: Section 138
- Constitution of India: Articles 226, 227
