IMPORTANT POINT
Every award of Lok Adalat is deemed to be decree of a civil court and executable as a legally enforceable debt.

ORDER :

1. Leave granted.

2. This appeal is against an order dated 09.09.2015 passed by the Indore Bench of the High Court of Madhya Pradesh allowing the application filed by the accused respondent being Misc. Criminal Case No. 9128/2012 against an order passed by the Learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class Narsinghgarh, dated 29.07.2011, refusing to dismiss the Complaint Case No. 547/2009 filed by the appellant complainant against the accused respondent under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and the order passed by the Additional District Judge dated 24.08.2012, dismissing the revisional application of the accused respondent against the said order dated 29.7.2011 of the Learned Judicial Magistrate, being Criminal Revision No. 195/2011.

3. The brief facts are that a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act was filed by the appellant complainant against the accused respondent on 02.07.2007.

4. The Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Narsinghgarh sentenced the accused respondent to six months’ imprisonment and further imposed a fine of Rs. 3,30,000/- on the accused respondent. Being aggrieved, the accused respondent filed a Criminal Appeal No. 231/2007. During the pendency of the criminal appeal, the matter was settled in a compromise before the Lok Adalat on 25.07.2008.

5. In terms of the compromise, the accused respondent was required to make a payment of Rs. 3,51,750/- which was paid on the same day through a post dated cheque drawn in favour of the appellant complainant.

6. The said cheque drawn by the accused respondent in favour of the appellant complainant as per the compromise arrived at between the appellant complainant and the accused respondent before the Lok Adalat, also got dishonoured, whereupon the appellant complainant filed criminal complaint No. 547/2009 u/s 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, referred to above, against the accused respondent.

7. The accused respondent filed an application before the Judicial Magistrate, First Class Narsinghgarh for dismissal of the complaint. The said application was dismissed. A Revisional application against the order of dismissal of the said application, passed by the Judicial Magistrate was also dismissed by the Sessions Court.

8. The accused respondent, however, approached the High Court under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code for quashing the proceedings. The application under Section 482, as observed above, has been allowed by the High Court by the order impugned.

9. The High Court observed that it was an undisputed fact that in respect of earlier cheque issued by the respondent accused, a criminal case had been preferred u/s 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and the respondent accused had also been convicted. A fine was also imposed on the respondent accused.

10. The High Court proceeded to quash the complaint observing that the question of entertaining the second complaint did not arise, when the cheque was not issued in discharge of any debt or liability of the company. It was issued on account of a settlement.

11. With the greatest of respect, the High Court has misconstrued the judgment of this Court in Lalit Kumar Sharma and Another vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and Another, 2008 (5) SCC 638.

12. In Lalit Kumar Sharma (supra), the Supreme Court found that ingredients of Section 138 of the Act were: (i) a legally enforceable debt; (ii) that the cheque was drawn for discharge in whole or in part of any debt or other liability, which presupposes a legally enforceable debt and (iii) the cheque so issued had been returned due to insufficiency of funds.

13. Lalit Kumar’s case is distinguishable on facts, in that the cheque had not been issued in discharge of any debt or liability of the Company of which the accused were said to be the Directors. The cheque was found to have been issued for the purpose of arriving at a settlement.

14. In the instant case, the respondent clearly had a liability. As observed above, there was an earlier adjud