An award of Lok Adalat can only be challenged on limited grounds and is binding on the parties unless obtained through coercion or fraud.

ORDER :

1. The petitioner has challenged award dated 25.06.2022 passed by Lok Adalat presided over by Chief Judicial Magistrate Shopian. Challenge has also been thrown to the execution proceedings emanating from the aforesaid award.

2. It appears that respondent No.2 had filed two complaints for offences under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, one against the petitioner and another against his son, before the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate Shopian. The subject matter of the complaint filed against the petitioner was two cheques, one for an amount of Rs.3.00 lacs and the other for an amount of Rs.5.00 lacs. Both the complaints were referred to Lok Adalat for settlement by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate and before the Lok Adalat a compromise came to be executed by the petitioner and his son, Sheeraz Ahmad Malik with the complainant/respondent No.2 herein. As per the terms of the compromise the petitioner and his son undertook to liquidate the amount of Rs. 8.00 lacs by 30.12.2022 by making the payment in three installments. The first installment of Rs.2.00 lacs was to be paid on 06.06.2022, the second installment of Rs.1,50,000.00 was to be paid in the month of November and third and final installment of Rs.4,50,000.00 was to be paid in the month of December, 2022. The compromise deed also provided for stipulations relating to penalty in case of default.

3. In the light of this compromise, the impugned award came to be passed by the Lok Adalat presided over by Chief Judicial Magistrate Shopian on 25.06.2022 and in terms of the said compromise the complaint against the petitioner came to be disposed of.

4. The petitioner has challenged the impugned award on the grounds that the same has been passed without application of mind and that the same is illegal. It has been further contended that in compromise arrived at before the Lok Adalat, it was clearly indicated that the petitioner did not owe any thing to respondent No.2 and that it was the son of the petitioner who owed money to the said respondent but in spite of this, the impugned award came to be passed against the petitioner.

5. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the record.

6. It is a settled law that an award of Lok Adalat can be challenged on limited grounds and normally an order of Lok Adalat is binding on the parties. It is only if an award has been obtained by a party by practising coercion or fraud on the party against whom award has been passed that the High Court would entertain a challenge to such an award under its jurisdiction under Article 226 or 227 of the Constitution of India.

7. In the instant case, the petitioner has not even made a whisper that he was either made to enter into a compromise by practising any fraud upon him by respondent No.2 or that he was coerced to enter into the compromise with him. The only ground urged by the petitioner for assailing the impugned award of Lok Adalat is that he did not owe money to respondent No.2 and it was his son who owned the money to respondent No.2 and in spite of this the award came to be passed against him.

8. The ground urged by the petitioner appears to be without any substance for the reason that admittedly a complaint under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act was filed by respondent No.2 against the petitioner before the Chief Judicial Magistrate Shopian. It is also not in dispute that subject matter of that complaint was two cheques for an amount of Rs.8.00 lacs drawn by the petitioner in favour of respondent No.2. In fact, the petitioner has annexed copies of these two cheques and the memo of dishonour alongwith the writ petition. In what connection the petitioner had issued these cheques in favour of respondent No.2 was a subject matter to be decided during the trial of the complaint before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate but during the pendency of the proceedings a compromise came to be executed by the petitioner and respondent No.2 as also by the son of t