The absence of the complainant's consent in a Lok Adalat compromise invalidates the award, as statutory requirements for notice and participation are fundamental to upholding justice and preventing fraud.

ORDER:

Gadi Praveen Kumar, J.

1. Heard Sri G.V.R.Chowdary, learned counsel representing Sri G.Vasantha Rayudu, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, Sri Mahesh Raje, learned Government Pleader for Home appearing for the respondent No.1, Sri P.Shashi Kiran, the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondent No.2, Sri V.Ramesh, learned counsel appearing for the respondent Nos.5 to 10 (Online), and Sri Satyasiri, learned counsel appearing for the respondent Nos.11 & 12.

2. The present Writ Petition is filed assailing the action of the 2^nd respondent in passing an award dated 08.09.2023 allowing the petitions filed by the respondent Nos.5 to 10 and closing CC.No.492 of 2023 on the file of learned II Additional Junior Civil Judge-cum-X Additional Metropolitan Magistrate, Ranga Reddy District at Kukatpally, as illegal, unauthorized and to set aside the same and a consequential direction for the respondent Nos.3 & 4 to conduct the prosecution in CC.No.492 of 2023.

3. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner and the respondent No.11 were the partners in M/s.Matrix Homes and Infratech Ventures LLP (for short ‘the LLP’). The LLP has initially entered into a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) on 25.05.2019 with one M/s.White Lotus Structures Private Limited (for short the ‘Company’). Subsequently on 25.07.2019, the LLP has entered into a Development Agreement-cum- General Power of Attorney (ADGPA) with the Company (respondent Nos.5, 6, 8 to 10) agreeing for development of land to an extent of 9680 square yards situated in Sy.No.68 part, Madhapur Village, Serilingampalli Mandal, Ranga Reddy District (subject land).

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner averred that during the course of business transactions, the LLP discovered that the land entrusted to the company for development was in fact Government-owned and not the company's property. As a result, significant amounts invested by the petitioner and his mother were misappropriated. The petitioner further alleged that the company and its Directors engaged in fraudulent and dishonest conduct with the intention of unlawfully benefiting themselves while causing financial harm to the LLP, the petitioner and his mother. Consequently, on 01.02.2022, FIR No.106 of 2022 was registered for the offences under Sections 406 , 420, 120B read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code ( IPC ) and after investigation, a charge sheet was submitted against the respondent Nos.5 to 10 in CC.No.492 of 2023.

5. The learned counsel further averred that the petitioner was made to resign the LLP on 12.03.2023 and left for USA on 27.08.2023. Taking advantage of the petitioner’s absence from Hyderabad, the respondent No.12 who is the wife of the respondent No.11 has become one of the partners in the LLP. The respondent Nos.11 and 12 have colluded with the respondent Nos.5 to 10 and facilitated the reference of the case to Lok Adalat, resulting in the compounding of CC.No.492 of 2023 on 08.09.2023 and thereafter the trial Court passed a docket order which records that “defacto complainant/authorized representative was present” and disposed of the case.

6. The learned counsel for the petitioner asserts that the LLP had no authority to compound the crime because the complaint was lodged personally by the petitioner not by LLP. Whereas no notice was issued to the petitioner though the petitioner is the defacto complainant and the petitioner did not sign or consent to any compromise. Therefor