Petitioner challenged a Lok Adalath award as obtained by fraud. Counsel argued respondents suppressed a pending case against the petitioner's husband to secure settlement. Court found fraud viable and quashed the award.
Impugned Lok Adalath award dated 17.01.2019 is quashed and the original case C.C.No.609/2018 is restored.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 7TH DAY OF APRIL, 2021
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P. SANDESH
WRIT PETITION NO.772/2021(GM-RES)
BETWEEN:
SMT. HEMAVATHI I.B. W/O H.S. DEVARAJ AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS OCC: HOUSE WIFE R/AT HIREKOLALE VILLAGE-577 101 CHIKKAMAGALURU TALUKA
… PETITIONER [BY SRI J.S.HALASHETTI, ADVOCATE]
AND:
1 . KALYANAKUMAR S/O BASAVARAJU AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS R/O GOWRI KALUVE CHIKMAGALURU - 577 101
2 . SUDEER
S/O DEVEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS R/O VAJUVALLI, HACHHADAMANE POST CHIKMAGALURU - 577 101
3 . C.S. RAGHU S/O MANJUNATHA GOWDA AGED ABOUT 69 YEARS R/O BEHIND CHETHAN NURSING HOME
2
MALLANDUR ROAD CHIKMAGALURU - 577 101
5 . STATE OF KARNATAKA BY CHIKKAMAGALURU RURAL POLICE CHIKKAMANGALURU-577101 REPRESENTED BY STATE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA BENGALURU-560 001.
… RESPONDENTS
[BY SMT. NAMITHA MAHESH B.G., HCGP FOR R5; SRI H.N.MANJUNATH PRASAD &
SRI GIREESHA R.J., ADVOCATES FOR R1 TO R4-(ABSENT)]
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA READ WITH SECTION 482 OF CR.P.C. PRAYING TO QUASH THE AWARD DATED 17.01.2019 PASSED IN LOK ADALAT IN C.C.NO.609/2018 WHICH WAS HELD BY THE 1ST ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, CHIKMAGALURU VIDE ANNEXURE-G TO THE WRIT PETITION.
THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
O R D E R
This writ petition is filed under Articles 226 & 227 of the Constitution of India read with Section 482 of Cr.P.C, praying this Court to issue a writ or order or direction in the nature of
3
certiorari quashing the award dated 17.01.2019 passed in Lok Adalath in C.C.No.609/2018, which was held by the I Additional Senior Civil Judge & JMFC., Chikkamagaluru, which is produced at Annexure ‘G’ and grant any other order/direction as this Court deemed fit under the facts and circumstances of the case.
4
cheques which have been stolen would be returned but after obtaining the order from the Lok Adalath, they have turned hostile and instead proceeded to continue the case, which has already been filed against the petitioner’s husband, which was not in the knowledge of the petitioner.
the said cheques bounce case was not within the knowledge of the petitioner herein and a notice was issued subsequent to the compromise. The learned counsel also brought to the notice of this Court that during the course of cross-examination, the very same suggestion was made and also in the cross-examination, a suggestion was made that requested the petitioner herein for compromise and obtained the order. This Court has issued notice against the respondents and the respondents represented through the counsel and the learned counsel did not appear before this Court on the previous occasion. However, this Court made it clear that if the learned counsel for respondent Nos.1 to 4 does not appear on the next date of hearing, the matter will be heard in his absence.
5
05.10.2017, an allegation was made against the respondents herein that they have trespassed the house and removed the valuable documents and other properties and a case was registered. Thereafter, when the matter was pending got it compromised the matter and the very submission of the learned counsel that it was assured at the time of entering into the compromise that they are going to return the cheques. It is also pertinent to note that it was within the knowledge of the respondents herein that they have already filed a case against the husband of the petitioner herein and summons was issued subsequent to the compromise and when the same was within the knowledge of the respondents herein that a case had been filed against the petitioner’s husband is pending and persuaded the petitioner to come for compromise. If really, the matter has been settled among the parties in respect of the case, which has been pending, the respondents have brought to the notice of the Court that the other case was pending and suppressing the same though the case was filed prior to entering into the compromise and obtained the order from the Lok Adalath. Hence, it is a clear
6
case of fraud as contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that persuaded the complainant in getting an order before the Lok Adalath, suppressing the fact that the case is pending against the petitioner’s husband. It is also important to note that the petitioner’s husband, who was CW.2 in the said criminal case, also signed in the compromise petition before the Lok Adalath. Under the circumstances, it is appropriate to invoke the writ jurisdiction by exercising the powers under Articles 226 & 227 of the Constitution of India read with Section 482 of Cr.P.C, to quash the Lok Adalath award dated 17.01.2019.
following:
ORDER
7
(iii) The Trial Court is directed to proceed with the matter in accordance with law.
Sd/JUDGE
cp*
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the writ jurisdiction should be invoked to quash a Lok Adalath award obtained by fraud where pending criminal charges against a family member were suppressed.
Whether the suppression of a pending case against the petitioner's husband vitiates the compromise before the Lok Adalath.
Whether the original criminal case should be restored after quashing the settlement award.
4 provisions across 2 enactments
Hemavathi I.B.
Kalyanakumar
Sudeer
C.S. Raghu
Syed Mohammad Ghouse
State of Karnataka
H.P. Sandesh
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
