Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 547 (HP)

Rajan Chopra v. Uttam Chand

2015-05-18

TARLOK SINGH CHAUHAN

body2015
Judgment : Tarlok Singh Chauhan, J. This petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India read with Section 482 Cr. P.C. has been preferred by the petitioner with a prayer to quash and set-aside the order dated 16.3.2013 passed by the Lok Adalat, Kullu whereby his complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, (for short ‘Act’) was compounded. 2. The facts as pleaded are that the petitioner filed a complaint under Section 138 of the Act against the respondent for dishonouring cheque of 50,000/- which was returned with the remarks “funds insufficient”. After issuing the statutory notice, the proceedings under Section 138 of the Act were initiated and the respondent came to be convicted and sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment of one year and the petitioner was awarded compensation to the tune of 80,000/-. In default of payment, the respondent was further directed to undergo imprisonment of two months. 3. The respondent preferred an appeal before the learned Sessions Judge, Kullu, and upon the notice, the petitioner engaged the services of Sh. Vivek Thakur, Advocate. The criminal appeal came to be listed before the Lok Adalat on 16.3.2013. The statement of the respondent was recorded and on behalf of the petitioner, the statement of one Sudhir Bhatnagar, Advocate was recorded. On the basis of the statement recorded, the appeal was disposed of as having been compromised and the offence was compounded. 4. Now, the grievance of the petitioner is that he had never engaged/ instructed Sh. Sudhir Bhatnagar, Advocate to appear on his behalf much less make a statement before the Lok Adalat regarding the compromise. The petitioner had never instructed him to receive a sum of 25,000/- as had been reflected in the impugned statement dated 16.3.2013. The petitioner also placed on record the power of attorney executed by him in favour of Sh.Vivek Thakur, Advocate. It is also the grievance of the petitioner that the amount of 25,000/- which was alleged to have been received by Sh. Sudhir Bhatnagar, Advocate was never remitted to the petitioner and further that the awarded compensation of 80,000/- was never deposited or paid to the petitioner. Lastly, it is contended that the statement as arrived at was not only against the settled position of law but also contrary to the provisions of the Act. 5. On the other hand, Mr. Sudhir Bhatnagar, Advocate was never remitted to the petitioner and further that the awarded compensation of 80,000/- was never deposited or paid to the petitioner. Lastly, it is contended that the statement as arrived at was not only against the settled position of law but also contrary to the provisions of the Act. 5. On the other hand, Mr. N.K. Bhardwaj, learned counsel for the respondent has vehemently argued that his client cannot be made to suffer for no fault on his part because the respondent had duly paid the settled amount of 25,000/- to the counsel for the petitioner and that fact stands reflected in the order of the Lok Adalat dated 16.3.2013. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the records of the case carefully. 7. A perusal of the grounds of the petition would show that the petitioner is more aggrieved by the fact that he had not engaged Sh. Sudhir Bhatnagar as his Advocate and had engaged Sh. Vivek Thakur, Avocate and, therefore, Sh. Sudhir Bhatnagar had no authority to appear and then compromise the matter with the opposite party. Admittedly, it was on the representation of Sh. Sudhir Bhatnagar, Advocate that the matter was compromised and in case Sh. Sudhir Bhatnagar, had been authorized then no illegality, impropriety or infirmity can be found with the impugned order. 8. In case the petitioner felt that the happenings in the Court (Lok Adalat) had been wrongly recorded in the judgment, then it was incumbent upon him to report the matter to the members of the Lok Adalat and bring this fact to their notice. 9. The happenings in Court (Lok Adalat) cannot be challenged before this Court as it is settled law that statement of facts as to what transpired in the hearing recorded in the judgment of the Court (Lok Adalat), are conclusive of the facts so stated and none can contradict such statement by affidavit or the evidence. Though, the petitioner would contend that the order is not in conformity with the provisions of the Negotiable Instruments Act and the settled position of law, but then it has to be remembered that in cases of compromise, neither rigors of procedure nor the rigors of law would apply. 10. This Court cannot launch an inquiry as to what transpired before the Lok Adalat. 10. This Court cannot launch an inquiry as to what transpired before the Lok Adalat. Public Policy and judicial decorum do not permit it. The matters of judicial record in that sense are unquestionable. This Court is not a play field where judicial officers can be roped into settle individual claims. This is simply not done especially when the petitioner himself has failed to place on record any material which may even remotely suggest that he had taken action against either of the counsels. 11. In view of the aforesaid discussion, I find no merit in this petition and the same is accordingly dismissed leaving the parties to bear their own costs.