ORDER : The petitioner herein is the sole accused for the offence under Sec. 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act in S.T.No.550/2015 on the file of the Judicial First Class Magistrate's Court, Nedunkandam, instituted on the basis of the complaint filed by the 1st respondent herein. After appearance of the petitioner accused before the trial court, the learned Magistrate had referred the matter for mediation at the Mediation Sub Centre, Kattapana,. The cheque amount involved in this case comes to Rs.3 lakhs. In the mediation, both the petitioner and the complainant arrived at a settlement as per Anx.A dated 26.10.2015 that the complaint could be withdrawn on the accused paying an amount of Rs.1.38 lakhs to the complainant on or before 30.1.2016. 2. According to the petitioner, due to his impecunious financial circumstances, he could not raise the amount of Rs.1.38 lakhs as agreed to in the mediation. The case was again posted before the trial court on 3.3.2016. On 3.3.2016 as the petitioner was not able to be personally present before the trial court, coercive proceedings were initiated against him after cancellation of the bail bond on the ground that the petitioner has failed to comply with the terms and conditions of the mediation settlement and had also on the ground that he failed to appear before the court in person on 3.3.2016. This would be evident from the proceedings of the learned Magistrate as per Anx.E dated 3.3.2016. Apprehending remandal custody by the trial court in execution of the NBW pending against the petitioner, the petitioner has constrained to approach this Court by filing Crl.M.C.No.2222/2016 seeking directions from this Court so as to direct the learned Magistrate to release the petitioner on bail on his surrender and applying for bail before the court below. This Court as per Anx.C order dated 7.4.2016 had disposed of Crl.M.C.No. 2222/2016, with the direction that the learned Magistrate should consider the bail application made by the petitioner on the date of surrender itself. This Court as per Anx.C order dated 7.4.2016 had disposed of Crl.M.C.No. 2222/2016, with the direction that the learned Magistrate should consider the bail application made by the petitioner on the date of surrender itself. That in compliance with Anx.C order, the petitioner had surrendered before the learned Magistrate on 28.4.2016 and the Magistrate had insisted that the petitioner should deposit an amount of Rs.40,000/- as a condition for grant of bail and the petitioner was constrained to agree that he will deposit an amount of Rs.40,000/- and accordingly, as per Anx.D order dated 28.4.2016, the learned Magistrate had granted bail to him on the submission of the petitioner that the petitioner will deposit Rs. 40,000/- on 2.5.2016 and that the accused will be present on 2.5.2016. 3. It is further averred that on 2.5.2016, the petitioner had appeared before the trial court and he was constrained to hand over an amount of Rs.35,000/- on that day and the learned Magistrate had further directed that the petitioner should deposit additional amount of Rs. 25,000/- on or before 4.6.2016 and the case was adjourned to 4.6.2016. These aspects are also discernible from a reading of Anx.E proceedings, more particularly one in relation to the posting date of 2.5.2016, which reads as follows: "2.5.2016 :Complainant Present, payed Rs.35000/- For payment, pay Rs.25,000/- on or before 04.06.16." That there was no sitting on 4.6.2016 and the case was adjourned to 26.6.2016 and the case was advanced at the instance of the complainant on 10.6.2016 even without giving notice to the petitioner. It is alleged that on that day, the learned Magistrate had again issued NBW against the petitioner on the ground that the petitioner had not complied with the direction to pay Rs.25,000/- on or before 4.6.2016. These aspects are dealt with in Anx.E. 4. In the light of these aspects, the petitioner has preferred the instant Crl.M.C. for directions of this Court to set aside Anx.D and E orders to the extent non bailable warrant has been issued against the petitioner and coercive steps have also been initiated against him, etc. It is also prayed that orders may be issued by this Court to the learned Magistrate to proceed and dispose of S.T.No. 550/2015 on merits, in accordance with law, etc. 5. It is also prayed that orders may be issued by this Court to the learned Magistrate to proceed and dispose of S.T.No. 550/2015 on merits, in accordance with law, etc. 5. Heard Sri.Ajeesh K.Sasi, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner (accused), Dr.Pauly Mathew Muricken, learned counsel appearing for R-1 (complainant) and Sri.Saigi Jacob Palatty, learned Prosecutor appearing for R-2 State. 6. This Court while admitting the case, had ordered on 5.8.2016 that execution of non bailable warrant issued against the petitioner will stand deferred. This Court had specifically queried to both parties as to whether they would abide by the terms and conditions of the mediation agreement. The learned counsel appearing for the complainant had submitted that even if, at this late stage, the accused is prepared to pay the total amount of Rs.1.38 lakhs, after deducting the amount of Rs.35,000/- already paid, then the complainant is willing to settle the matter even though the cheque amount is for Rs. 3 lakhs. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner wanted time to get instructions. Now it is submitted by Sri.Ajeesh K.Sasi, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner on the basis of the instructions from his party that the petitioner is also highly desirous to settle the matter and even though he tried his level best to raise the balance amount, due to his present financial condition, he is not in a position to give the balance amount to the complainant as agreed to as per the mediation. Therefore, it appears that the terms of the mediation cannot be fulfilled as of now and there is no point in compelling the accused to fulfill the terms and conditions of the mediation agreement arrived at in the course of the settlement of a Sec.138 complaint. 7. It is also to be noted that this Court in the case Sreelal v. Murali Menon & Anr. reported in 2014(3) KLT 536 = 2014 (3) KHC 316, has held that a mediation agreement arrived at in the course of the trial proceedings, cannot be treated as evidence at a subsequent stage and the court must allow the parties to adduce evidence ignoring the mediation agreement and dispose of the same on the basis of eve adduced by the parties, etc. 8. 8. Now the only option available as per law for the trial court is to proceed with the trial and decide the case on merits in accordance with law. Since the mediation was not successful and trial is to proceed on merits, the complainant will have to return the amount of Rs.35,000/-, which was paid by the petitioner accused to him. Dr.Pauly Mathew Muricken, learned counsel appearing for the 1st respondent submits on the basis of the instructions from his party that the complainant will deposit the said amount of Rs. 35,000/- before the trial court within a period of 6 weeks. The trial court will ensure that the said amount of Rs.35,000/- is placed in a fixed deposit in the name of the court in relation to this case, before any nationalized bank or scheduled bank so as to secure maximum rate of interest and necessary instructions may be given to the bank to periodically renew the fixed deposit until instructed otherwise. After the conclusion of the trial, if the accused is acquitted, then the said amount along with interest, covered by that deposit should be released to the accused. If the accused is convicted, then the trial court should obtain further orders from this Court as to the course of action to be taken in respect of the said deposit. 9. The learned Magistrate will proceed with the trial and will endeavour to complete the same within a period of 6 months from the date of deposit of the above said amount by the complainant before the trial court. Therefore, since only option that is available to the trial court is to proceed with the trial on merits consequent to the failure of the mediation agreement, steps taken by the trial court for taking further action pursuant to the mediated settlement by way of coercive steps including NBW etc. only for the failure to pay the amount as agreed to in the mediation, are illegal and ultra vires. Accordingly, Anxs.D and E orders passed by the learned Magistrate to the extent it initiate coercive steps including NBW, etc. will stand quashed. The bail granted earlier to the petitioner will stand automatically restored. The trial court should ensure that a dispassionate and fair approach is taken in this matter in the conduct of trial so as to eschew from the judicial consideration the incidents relating to the mediation. 9. will stand quashed. The bail granted earlier to the petitioner will stand automatically restored. The trial court should ensure that a dispassionate and fair approach is taken in this matter in the conduct of trial so as to eschew from the judicial consideration the incidents relating to the mediation. 9. The trial court should also bear in mind the wholesome principle laid down by this Court in the decision in Sreelal v. Murali Menon & Anr. reported in 2014(3) KLT 536 = 2014 (3) KHC, that in cases where trial is to be proceeded after the failure of mediation agreement, the trial court will decide the matter independently on the basis of the evidence adduced before it and untramelled and uninfluenced in any manner by the failed mediation agreement. With these observations and directions, the aforecaptioned Crl.M.C. stands finally disposed of.