ORDER

1. Both the revision petitions are connected and between the same parties, hence, both are being heard analogously and are being decided by this common order.

2. Present revision petitions have been filed on behalf of the petitioner being aggrieved by the orders dated 13.1.2020 passed in CRA Nos.171/2019 and 170/2019 by 3rd ASJ, District Dewas CRR Nos.1052 of 2020 & 1055 of 2020 whereby the learned Judge has affirmed the orders dated 19.6.2019 passed in Criminal Case Nos. 5661/2014 & 4373/2015 passed by JMFC, Dewas whereby the petitioner was convicted and sentenced for 1-1 year R.I. with fine of Rs.2,82,500/- & Rs.2,73,000/- respectively in both the cases with default stipulations under section 138 of N.I. Act.

3. During the pandency of the revision petitions, both the parties have settled their dispute amicably and the petitioner has deposited the entire amount as fined by the learned trial Court before the trial Court, receipts of the same were produced before this Court and thereafter, looking the amicable settlement between the parties, the matter was placed before the Lok Adalat held on 12.12.2020.

4. Vide order dated 12.12.2020, passed in the LOK ADALAT, the matter was disposed in the light of the judgment of Hon'ble apex Court passed in the case of Damodar S. Prabhu v. Sayed Babalal H. reported in 2010(5) SCC 576 subject to deposit 2% of the whole amount before the Secretary, High Court Legal Services Authority within four weeks and also stipulated that in case of any default in depositing the compounding fee, the order CRR Nos.1052 of 2020 & 1055 of 2020 shall stand cancelled automatically.

5. Thereafter, no one is appearing on behalf of the petitioner since long and looking to the non-complaince of the order dated 12.12.2020 as the petitioner has not deposited 2% of whole amount as directed, the Registry of this Court requisitioned a report from the Secretary, High Court Legal Services Authority who, vide report dated 31.3.2021, no amount was deposited by the petitioner before the Secretary, High Court Legal Services Authority. Hence, the matters have been further placed before this Court.

6. However, looking to the non-appearance before this Court on behalf of the petitioner, counsel for the respondent has stated that the petitioner has already been died, hence, the order of this Court could not be complied with and the amount so directed, could not be deposited before the Authority.

7. Learned counsel for the respondent submits that both the parties have amicably settled the dispute and the amount has already been deposited before the trial Court by the petitioner and unfortunately, he is no more, but the respondent is entitled to withdraw the amount so deposited before the Court below and in CRR Nos.1052 of 2020 & 1055 of 2020 this regard, applications i.e. I.A. Nos.4566/2020 & 4569/2020 for withdrawal of the amount are already pending in both the petitions since 13.7.2020.

8. In support of his contention, learned counsel for the respondent has place reliance over the judgment of this Court passed in the Case of Virendra v. Shri RamTransport Finance Company Limited in CRR No.2404/2015 decided on 17.11.2015. She further placed reliance over the judgment of Hon'ble apex Court passed in the case of Madhya Pradesh State Legal Services Authority v. Prateek Jan and Another [2014 (10) SCC 690] whereby Hon'ble the apex Court in para No.23 has held as under:-

“Having regard thereto, we are of the opinion that even when a case is decided in Lok Adalat, the requirement of following the guidelines contained in Damodar S. Prabhu (supra) should normally not be dispensed with. However, if there is a special/specific reason to deviate therefrom, the Court is not remediless as Damodar S. Prabhu (supra) itself has given discretion to the concerned Court to reduce the costs with regard to specific facts and circumstances of the case, while recording reasons in writing about such variance. Therefore, in those matters where the case