A.K. Basheer, J.—This petition filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, raises an interesting question for consideration.

2. Petitioner is the complainant, in a prosecution under Section138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The complaint filed by the petitioner against respondent No.1 herein, was referred to the Lok Adalat being organized by the District Legal Services Authority as agreed by the parties. The matter was settled and an award was passed.

3. Annexure-II Award will show that the dispute between the petitioner and respondent No.1, was settled in the following terms.

“Settled for Rs.1.50,000, Rs. 50,000 will be paid before 31.5.2005. and Rs. 50,000 will be paid by 30.9.2005 and Rs. 50,000 will be paid by 31.12.2005. Call on 3.6.2005.”

4. The case of the petitioner is that respondent No.1 did not make payment in compliance with the terms agreed upon between the parties. It appears that the petitioner had therefore reported the matter before the Judicial Magistrate of First Class-II, Ernakulam, by whom the matter was referred to the Lok Adalath.

5. The learned Magistrate by his order dated, Han. 31, 2006 held that no further proceedings can be “maintained” in the complaint since the matter had already been settled between the parties before the Lok Adalath and the accused acquitted under Section 320(8) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. A copy of the order passed by the learned Magistrate is on record as Annexure-III.

6. The prayer in this petition is to quash Annexure-II and III and to restore the complaint to the file of the Court below, with a direction to dispose it of in accordance with law.

7. As mentioned earlier, the parties had settled the matter before the Lok Adalath, though respondent No.1 accused did not honour his commitment and pay the amount covered under the cheque in 3 instalments as agreed by him before the Lok Adalath.

8. Section 21 of the Legal Services Authorities Act 1987 reads thus:

“(1) Every award of the Lok Adalat shall be deemed to be a decree of a civil Court or, as the case may be, an order of any other Court and where a compromise or settlement has been arrived at by a Lok Adalat in a case referred to it under sub-section (l) of Section 20, the Court fee paid in such case shall be refunded in the manner provided under the Court Fees Act. 1870 (7 of 1870).

(2) Every award made by a Lok Adalat shall be final and binding on all the parties to the dispute, and no appeal shall lie to any court against the award.”

9. A perusal of the provisions contained in the above section will unambiguously show that every award made by the Lok Adalat shall be final and binding on the parties to the dispute. An award passed by the Lok Adalat shall be deemed to be a decree of a Civil Court or an order of any other Court. The award can be executed as though, it is a decree passed by a Civil Court.

10. In P.T. Thomas v. Thomas Job1 the Apex Court had occasion to consider the impact of an award made by a Lok Adalat as agreed by the parties. Their lordships observed thus:

“In our opinion, the award of the Lol Adalat is fictionally deemed to be a decree of Court and therefore the courts have all the powers in relation thereto as it has in relation to a decree passed by itself. This in our opinion, includes the powers to extend time in appropriate cases. In our opinion, the award passed by the Lok Adalat is the decision of the court itself though arrived at by the simpler method of conciliation instead of the process of arguments in court. The effect is the same. In this connection, the High Court has failed to note that by the award what is put an end to is the appeal in the District Court and thereby the litigations between brothers forever .The view taken by the High Court, in our view, will totally defeat the object and purposes of the Legal Services Authorities Act and render the decision of the Lok Adalat meaningless. The court’s attempt should be to give life and enforceabilit