ORDER : 1. Since the respondent is absconding, notice to the respondent is dispensed with. Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner. 2. The petitioner was the complainant before the court below alleging an offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (Hereinafter referred to as the ‘NI Act’, for brevity). The respondent had entered appearance before the court below and conceded that he owes the petitioner Rs.5,30,000/-and not Rs.6,30,000/-. Therefore, the court below had referred the matter to the Lok Adalath. At the Lok Adalath, the respondent had agreed that he would repay the amount in one installment by 26.12.2015. This statement was recorded by the Lok Adalath and the matter was closed by order dated 8.8.2015. At the Lok Adalath, the petitioner had agreed to receive Rs.5,30,000/-in full and final settlement, while granting liberty to the petitioner herein to enforce the terms of compromise by initiating civil execution proceedings as if the terms of compromise was a decree in case the accused failed to pay the amount as agreed. 3. It now transpires that the respondent did not make any payment and had dodged the petitioner. Therefore, the petitioner had approached the magistrate seeking issuance of Fine Levy Warrant against the respondent. The court below has drawn attention to the Lok Adalath’s direction that the complainant could execute the compromise by initiating civil execution proceedings as if the terms of settlement was a decree and has rejected the application. It is in this background that the petitioner is before this court. 4. Firstly, it is noticed that the Legal Services Authority Act, 1987, which provides for the creation of Lok Adalaths under Chapter VI, thereof, has indicated the powers of the Lok Adalath or permanent Lok Adalat and has also prescribed that all the proceedings before a Lok Adalath shall be deemed to be judicial proceedings and it shall be deemed to be a civil court. Therefore, the question arises as to how a criminal case or even a case of quasi criminal nature, as in the case of an offence punishable under Section 138 of the NI Act, could have been referred to Lok Adalath. Therefore, the question arises as to how a criminal case or even a case of quasi criminal nature, as in the case of an offence punishable under Section 138 of the NI Act, could have been referred to Lok Adalath. On inquiry with the Legal Services Authority, this court is informed that the National Legal Services Authority taking note of the pendency of cases all over the country, particularly of cases alleging offences under Section 138 of the NI Act, had issued a communication to all the State Legal Services Authorities, including the Karnataka Legal Services Authority, which has received the communication as on 16th October 2015, expressing that the National Lok Adalaths were being organised through out the country every month on a specified subject matter and further that the Chief Justice of India, who was the Executive Chairman of the National Legal Services Authority, has desired that the Lok Adalat should not only be organised at the district level, but even at the taluka level up to the Supreme Court and that the cases which could be referred to the Lok Adalat for disposal included criminal compoundable cases and the cases under the NI Act, apart from other cases which were specified. The communication further indicated that care must be taken to avoid cases where disposal at the Lok Adalath will not result in a non-executable decree and this was in keeping with the resolution passed at the National Meet of the Legal Services Authority at Ranchi in 2015. It is on the basis of this initiative taken by the Legal Services Authority, which did provide for reference of criminal cases to the Lok Adalat, the criminal cases are being referred to the Lok Adalath. Therefore, the instant case had been referred to the Lok Adalath on the note that there was an element of settlement. In other words, the matter was compoundable and could have been compounded under Section 147 of the Cr.PC and a joint memo was filed before the criminal court, whereby the respondent had undertaken that he would pay Rs.5,30,000/-. It was clearly a case which should have been closed in the court itself on such terms and conditions. The matter having been referred to the Lok Adalat notwithstanding that there was an apparent compounding of the offence is inexplicable. It was clearly a case which should have been closed in the court itself on such terms and conditions. The matter having been referred to the Lok Adalat notwithstanding that there was an apparent compounding of the offence is inexplicable. Therefore, if that is kept in view, the proceeding pending before the Lok Adalath could be taken as a formal compounding of the case. In terms of the settlement arrived at, if it was executory in nature or in other words, if the accused was to comply with certain terms, which were not complied with, there is no impediment for the criminal court to deal with the matter as if there was non-compliance with the judgment passed by it. 5. Consequently, the petitioner being driven to a civil court where the civil court will be in a quandary to deal with the execution case would lead to other complications. Therefore, it would be just and fair, if the criminal court itself proceed to deal with the application filed by the petitioner. For otherwise, the very object of the legislation, namely, the NI Act and the proceedings initiated and the sanctity of the respondent having filed a Joint Memo agreeing to pay a sum of Rs.5,30,000/-would be thrown to the winds. This would be a direct affront to the court and the justice system. Hence, the petition is allowed. The order of the court below is set aside. The court below is directed to entertain the application and deal with the same in accordance with law.