THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P.SAM KOSHY AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUDDALA CHALAPATHI RAO W.P.No.27487 OF 2025 ORDER : (per Hon’ble Sri Justice P.Sam Koshy)

Heard Mr.Vankani Mallesham, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr.P.Shashi Kiran, learned Standing Counsel for the Telangana State Legal Services Authority, appearing for respondent No.2. Perused the record.

2. The present writ petition which has been filed against the action on the part of the respondent No.3 in continuing the C.C.No.665 of 2017, where the petitioner herein is the defendant/accused in proceedings under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. Present is a second round of litigation. Earlier also a writ petition was filed vide W.P.No.47527 of 2024 which was dismissed by this Division Bench of this Court on 06.12.2024.

3. The contention of the petitioners herein is that inspite of the mater having got considered before the Lok Adalath and in compliance of the same having been made in terms of the settlement. The trial court is still continuing with the C.C.No.665 of 2017, whereas, it ought to have closed the same in terms of the settlement arrived at before the Lok Adalath.

4. It is pertaining to take note of the settlement that was arrived at in the Lok Adalath that was held on 12.09.2024, for ready reference to clause of the terms of the settlement would be relevant to be considered i.e. clause Nos.2 & 3 of the terms of the settlement which for ready reference are reproduced hereinunder:

Clause No.2. The defendant voluntarily entered into compromise and settled the due amount and agreed to pay the settled amount of Rs.15,00,000/-(Rupees Fifteen Lakhs Only) to the plaintiff within two months i.e., on or before 15-11-2022. In default the plaintiff is entitled the decree for the entire suit amount with costs.

Clause No.3. In view of the settlement, there are no further financial claims are pending against each other, the plaintiff agreed to receive the settled amount towards satisfaction of the suit as well as another money suit pending before Senior Civil Judge Court, Huzurnagar, as well as criminal case under Section 138 of N.I.Act, pending before the Judicial Magistrate of First Class at Kodad, that the plaintiff agreed to withdraw the said cases after receiving the settled amount from the defendant i.e., C.C.No.665/2017, C.C.No.666/2017 on the file of Prl.JMFC, Kodad and O.S.No.72/2017 on the file of the JCJ, Huzurnagar.

5. Pursuant to the said settlement, the petitioners/accused are pressing hard before the trial Court for the closure of the proceedings in terms of the settlement. However, in the arguments put forth by the learned counsel for the petitioners, the petitioners herein has not honoured the settlement arrived at before the Lok Adalat as agreed upon and have only discharged part of the liability and with that part compliance, the petitioners wants the closure of the C.C.No.665 of 2017.

6. Having gone through the contents of the petition as also on perusal of the entire factual matrix and the documents enclosed along with the writ petition itself, the sole contention of the petitioners in the instant case is that since the parties have arrived at a settlement before the Lok Adalat the complaint case ought to have been closed forthwith. Moreover, the petitioners/defendant/accused has also made a part compliance of the settlement arrived at before the Lok Adalat. This Bench is however of the considered opinion that merely on part compliance of the settlement arrived at by the defendant accused by itself would not give rise to the closure of the complaint case more particularly, when clause 3 of the terms of the settlement specifically envisages as that withdrawal of the complaint case would be only after the plaintiff receives the agreed amount which in the instant case was Rs.15,00,000/- (Rupees Fifteen Lakhs). The petitioner admits that he has not paid the entire amount i.e., Rs.15,00,000/- (Rupees Fifteen Lakhs) as agreed upon