ORDER :

Ujjal Bhuyan, J.

By filing this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, petitioners seek quashing of award dated 12.09.2015, passed by the Lok Adalat, Sangareddy, and further seek a direction to respondents No.2 and 3 to carry out investigation in Crime No.609 of 2014, registered before the Ramachandrapuram Police Station.

2. On 25.09.2014, one Sevaram Rajender Singh lodged a first information before the Ramachandrapuram Police Station in the District of Medak, alleging that respondent No.5 and others, in collusion and conspiracy with officials of the Karnataka Bank, Kukatpally branch, had forged and fabricated several cheques of petitioner No.1/Anu Pharmacy Private Limited (for short ‘the Company’), of which, the informant was the Managing Director. It was alleged that all the cheques bore the signature of C.S.Reddy (petitioner No.2), which were forged by respondent No.5. The total amount covered by the forged cheques was Rs.1,98,19,836.00. On receipt of such first information, Crime No.609 of 2014 was registered by respondent No.3/Station House Officer, Ramachandrapuram Police Station, under Sections 419, 420, 406, 468 and 471 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC). At the stage of investigation, the Company wrote a letter to respondent No.3 on 14.02.2015, requesting to close the complaint. In the said letter, it was mentioned that there was a meeting of all the Directors of the Company including respondent No.5 whereafter, an understanding was reached that the allegations made in the complaint were due to miscommunication between the Directors. Since miscommunications were removed, the above letter was addressed to respondent No.3. It was further mentioned therein that the complainant-Sevaram Rajender Singh had expired on 16.12.2014 whereafter, all the Directors of the Company sat together and decided to issue the above letter.

3. It appears that in view of the above letter, the Assistant Public Prosecutor filed a petition on behalf of the prosecution before the Court of Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Sangareddy (for short ‘the court below’), under Section 216 Cr.P.C. It was mentioned therein that Crime No.609 of 2014 was registered by the Police under Sections 419, 420, 406, 468 and 471 of IPC, but the matter was compromised out of the Court. It was pointed out that the offences under Sections 419, 406 and 420 IPC were compoundable. Since both the parties were ready and willing to compromise the matter, prayer was made to delete the offences under Sections 468 and 471 IPC.

4. A docket order dated 12.09.2015 was passed by the learned Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Sangareddy. In the said order, it was mentioned that the accused i.e., respondent No.5 was present, so also the defacto complainant. The memo filed by the Assistant Public Prosecutor to delete Sections 468 and 471 IPC and the authorization given by the Company to the defacto complainant i.e., Sri C.S.Reddy to represent it, was allowed. Matter was referred to Lok Adalat.

5. Lok Adalat, Sangareddy, passed the award on 12.09.2015. It was mentioned that defacto-complainant/injured/victim had compromised with the accused. As per Section 320(8) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C.), the accused (respondent No.5) was discharged against the charges under Sections 419, 420 and 406 IPC. The award was signed by both the accused (respondent No.5) and the defacto complainant i.e., petitioner No.2, who were identified by Police Constable No.82.

6. While the matter rested thus, on 12.10.2020, the Company and Chinnamilli Satyanarayana Reddy (C.S.Reddy) filed the present Writ Petition before this Court seeking the reliefs as indicated above. In paragraph 3 of the supporting affidavit, it is stated that the award was obtained by respondent No.5 fraudulently. Petitioner No.2 was not authorized by the Company for any settlement. He was not the defacto complainant. In paragraph 7, it is stated that in the year 2015, police, i