Sri G Madan Mohan Reddy Vs Sri N Praveen Kumar

¶1

1 - NC: 2026:KHC:19758 WP No. 11029 of 2026

¶2

HC-KAR

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 9^TH DAY OF APRIL, 2026

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM WRIT PETITION NO. 11029 OF 2026 (GM-RES)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

SRI. G. MADAN MOHAN REDDY GPA HOLDER OF PROP OF M/S. GMMR PROPERTIES S/O SRI. GOPIREDDY, SRI. RAJAREDDY AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS, JAYANNA LAYOUT, RR NAGAR, HAVING OFFICE AT NO. 14, GROUND FLOOR, PARASNIVAS APARTMENT, BANGALORE - 560 098

¶9

…PETITIONER (BY SRI. RAJESHWARI M., ADVOCATE)

¶10

AND:

¶11

Digitally signed AND: by SHARADAVANI B SRI. N. PRAVEEN KUMAR Location: High

¶12

Court ofKarnataka S/O. SRI. NARASIMHAMURTHY, AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, R/AT NO.22/1, 4^TH TEMPLE STREET, 5^TH CROSS, MALLESHWARAM, BANGALORE - 560 003

¶13

…RESPONDENT

¶14

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO A) TO QUASH THE ORDER DATED 12-07-2025, PASSED BY THE IV ASCJ AND ACJM, IN CC NO.2131/2019 IN ACCEPTING THE JOINT MEMO FIELD BEFORE THE LOKADALATH VIDE ANNEXURE-C.

¶15

2 -

¶16

NC: 2026:KHC:19758 WP No. 11029 of 2026

¶17

HC-KAR

¶18

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM

¶19

ORAL ORDER

¶20

This petition is filed challenging the award passed by the Lok-Adalath in C.C.No.2131/2019.

¶21

The respondent/complainant instituted a private complaint under Section 200 of the Cr.P.C. alleging commission of an offence punishable under Sections 138 and 142 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (for short, 'the Act, 1881'). The scheme of Section 138 of the Act is founded on the legislative intent to enhance the credibility of commercial transactions and to ensure the sanctity of negotiable instruments by attaching penal consequences to the dishonour of cheques issued towards discharge of a legally enforceable debt or liability. Once the foundational facts, namely, issuance of cheque, its presentation within time, dishonour, and failure to make payment despite statutory notice are established, a presumption under Sections 118 and 139 of the Act operates in favour of the complainant, thereby shifting the burden on the accused to rebut the same. Section 142 further mandates the

¶22

3 - NC: 2026:KHC:19758 WP No. 11029 of 2026

¶23

HC-KAR

¶24

procedural requirements for maintaining such a complaint, reinforcing the statutory rigour attached to such proceedings.

¶25

In the present case, the material on record discloses that the cheque issued by the petitioner/accused towards discharge of a legally enforceable liability stood dishonoured, compelling the respondent/complainant to initiate proceedings. During the pendency of the said proceedings, the parties, with full knowledge of the consequences and with the assistance of their respective counsel, chose to amicably resolve the dispute by filing a joint memo and seeking reference of the matter to Lok Adalath. Before the Lok Adalath, the petitioner unequivocally agreed to pay a sum of Rs.15,00,000/- in two instalments, and based on such voluntary settlement, an award came to be passed and the complaint was accordingly closed.

¶26

It is trite that an award passed by the Lok Adalath partakes the character of a decree of a civil court and is final and binding on the parties in terms of Section 21 of the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987. Such an award is not amenable to challenge in routine proceedings unless vitiated by fraud, coercion, or misrepresentation of a grave nature, duly

¶27

4 - NC: 2026:KHC:19758 WP No. 11029 of 2026

¶28

HC-KAR

¶29

substantiated by cogent material. The sanctity attached to settlements recorded before the Lok Adalath cannot be lightly diluted, as the very object of alternate dispute resolution mechanisms is to bring quietus to litigation through voluntary and binding settlements.

¶30

In the case on hand, the petitioner, having consciously entered into a settlement and secured closure of the criminal proceedings arising under Section 138 of the Act, cannot now be permitted to resile from the terms of the joint memo on the mere assertion that he had not agreed to the settlement amount. Such a plea, in the absence of any credible material indicating fraud or coercion, is nothing but an afterthought. More importantly, the conduct of the petitioner assumes significance despite having obtained the benefit of closure of the complaint, he has admittedly failed to honour even a part of the agreed amount till date. This conduct not only undermines the settlement but also strikes at the very object of Section 138 proceedings, which is to ensure promptitude and reliability in financial dealings.

¶31

5 - NC: 2026:KHC:19758 WP No. 11029 of 2026

¶32

HC-KAR

¶33

Permitting the petitioner to retract from a solemn undertaking given before the Lok Adalath would set a dangerous precedent and defeat the efficacy of statutory dispute resolution mechanisms. The petitioner cannot be allowed to approbate and reprobate having taken advantage of the settlement to avoid penal consequences, he cannot now turn around and challenge the very basis of such settlement. In the absence of any substantiated allegation of fraud or illegality, this Court finds no justification to interfere with the award passed by the Lok Adalath.

¶34

Accordingly, this Court is of the considered view that the writ petition is wholly devoid of merit. The challenge mounted against the Lok Adalath award is unsustainable both in law and on facts, and therefore, the petition stands

¶35

dismissed .

¶36

Sd/- (SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM) JUDGE

¶37

HDK

¶38

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 26

Sri G Madan Mohan Reddy v. Sri N Praveen Kumar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri G Madan Mohan Reddy v. Sri N Praveen Kumar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mr. Channaveeregowda Vs the State of Karnataka

K. M. Venkatesh Vs State of Karnataka

Sriram General Insurance Company Ltd. Vs Smt Sharadamma

M B Rajiv Vs State of Karnataka

Aryadhan Financial Solutions Private Limited Vs State of Karnataka

Surendra Poojari @ Sooru Vs the Union of India