ORDER : 1. Heard Dr. J.S. Halashetty, learned advocate for the petitioner and Sri. M.V. Devaraju, learned senior advocate for the respondent. 2. Respondent negotiated terms of settlement and filed a joint memo on 28.8.2010 where under, the petitioner agreed to pay the sum in three installments. Accordingly, Lok-adalat passed an order on 28.08.2010. Petitioner challenged the said order in Criminal Petition No.6019/2010 contending inter alia that the petitioner was taken to the chambers of advocate for the complainant and made to sign certain papers. After hearing, this court, by order dated 20.4.2011 rejected the said petition. Subsequently, petitioner filed another Criminal Petition No.7207/2012. This Court by order dated 27.01.2015 dismissed the said petition on the ground that the subject matter of the order impugned in the second petition was the same as in Criminal Petition No.6019/2010. Petitioner, thereafter, has presented this writ petition challenging the very order passed, praying for quashing the proceedings in C.C.No.28077/2010 before the learned Magistrate. 3. Dr.Halashetty, learned advocate for the petitioner urged following grounds: that the petitioner is a victim of misrepresentation and fraud played upon him; that petitioner’s advocate is a chamber junior of complainant’s advocate; that the petitioner was forced to sign the papers; that petitioner signed the documents without realizing the consequences; that Lok-adalat again passed an order of sentence; that earlier petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. was filed without proper knowledge of law. It is now settled that only petition under Section 226 of the Constitution of India is maintainable against any order passed by the Lok-adalat. 4. Learned advocate for the petitioner placed reliance on the following rulings: (i) State of Punjab and Ors. v. Jalour Singh and Ors., [ (2008) 2 SCC 660 ] and (ii) Bharvagi Constructions and Ors. v. Kothakapu Muthyam Reddy and Ors., (2017 SCC OnLine SC 1053); to contend that only writ petition is maintainable. 5. Sri. Devaraju, learned senior advocate for the respondent submitted that the petitioner initially challenged the order dated 28.10.2010 passed by the Lok-adalat in Criminal Petition No.6019/2010 by filing a petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. The said petition was dismissed on 20.4.2011. Subsequently, petitioner filed Criminal Petition No.7207/2012 again under Section 482 Cr.P.C, with a prayer to quash the proceedings in C.C.No.28077/2010 including the order dated 28.10.2010. The said petition was also dismissed on 27.1.2015. Subsequently, petitioner filed Criminal Petition No.7207/2012 again under Section 482 Cr.P.C, with a prayer to quash the proceedings in C.C.No.28077/2010 including the order dated 28.10.2010. The said petition was also dismissed on 27.1.2015. He submitted that the petitioner could choose to file a petition either under Section 482 Cr.P.C. or under Article 226 of the Constitution of India before this Court. The nomenclature cannot make much difference and accordingly, prayed for dismissal of this petition. 6. I have carefully considered submissions of learned advocate for the petitioner and learned Senior advocate for the respondent; and perused the records. 7. The case in substance is, the respondent-complainant initiated proceedings under Section 138 of the N.I. Act for dishonour of a cheque bearing No.028162 dated 30.8.2009 for Rs. One Crore. The matter was referred to Lok-adalat. Parties entered into certain consent terms. A copy of consent terms has been annexed to the petition and it reads as follows: “The Complainant and Accused jointly begs (sic beg) to state as follows:- (1) That the complainant filed as against the Accused for dishonoring of the cheque bearing No.028162 dated Aug, 30, 2009 for Rs.1,00,00,000/- [Rupees One Crore only] drawn on Canara Bank, Car Street, Bellary Main-583101. (2) That at the intervention of well wishers and friends the parties decided to settle the matter amicably. (3) That during the course transaction the Accused due in a sum of Rs.1,03,48,805 (Rupees One Crore Three Lakhs Forty Eight Thousand Eight Hundred Five only) to the complainant the Accused agreed and undertaken to pay entire due and outstanding amount to the complainant to avoid multiplicity of proceedings to recover the amounts in this regard in the following manner:- (a) Rs.23,48,805/- (Rupees Twenty Three Lakhs Forty Eight Thousand Eight Hundred and Five only) on or before 01-10-2010; (b) Rs.30,00,000/- (Rupees Thirty Lakhs only) on or before 01-11-2010; (c) Rs.50,00,000/- (Rupees Fifty Lakhs only) on or before 01-12-2010; (4) That the Accused agreed and undertaken to pay installment without any delay or default. That it is mutually agreed that in the event if the Accused fails to pay the installment as agreed and the Accused agreed and undertaken (sic) to pay interest at the @ 18% per Annum from 08-08-2009 (from the date of amount paid by the Complainant to the Accused) on the balance amount due and outstanding till the entire amount paid. (5) That it is mutually agreed upon clearing the amounts there are no amounts are due and outstanding from each other and both the (sic) shall not proceed or initiate any proceedings in any court, as this is full and final settlement. Wherefore, it is most humbly prayed that this Hon’ble court to pass Judgment in terms of compromise in the interest of Justice and equity. sd/- ADVOCATE FOR COMPLAINANT sd/- COMPLAINANT sd/- ADVOCATE FOR ACCUSED sd/- ACCUSED Bangalore, Dated: 28-08-2010” 8. Based on the aforesaid consent terms, the Lok-adalat has passed the order dated 28.08.2010. 9. The said order dated 28.08.2010 was challenged before this Court by M/s.Vinayaka Mines and Minerals, represented by Mr.B.Mallikarjuna Reddy, in Criminal Petition No.6019/2010. This Court, while dismissing the said Criminal Petition has recorded as follows: “3. It is contended by the petitioner that in the morning of 28.08.2010, he was been taken to the chamber of the advocate for complainant and was made to sign the Vakalath and from there he was taken to the court and made to sign the joint memo without explaining the terms and conditions of joint memo and it is only during first week of December 2010 the petitioner came to know that in the joint memo he has admitted his liability and has agreed to pay the amount in installments. 4. The petitioner herein does not dispute that the joint memo filed in the court bears his signatures. The petitioner is a businessman, and is engaged in mining business and dealing in crores. Therefore the say of the petitioner that he was forced to sign the joint memo without explaining the contents there of cannot be accepted. Under these circumstances I find no merit in this contention. The petitioner having entered into a compromise with the respondent-complainant, appears to be trying to wriggle out of situation whereby he was required to pay amount as per the terms of the joint memo. Therefore, I find no ground to entertain this petition. Hence, the petition is rejected.” 10. After dismissal of Criminal Petition No.6019/2010, another Criminal Petition was filed by Mr.B.Mallikarjuna Reddy, describing himself as the Proprietor of M/s.Vinayaka Mines and Minerals challenging the entire proceedings in C.C.No.28077/2010 including the order dated 28.8.2010. The said petition was registered as Criminal Petition No.7207/2012. 11. Therefore, I find no ground to entertain this petition. Hence, the petition is rejected.” 10. After dismissal of Criminal Petition No.6019/2010, another Criminal Petition was filed by Mr.B.Mallikarjuna Reddy, describing himself as the Proprietor of M/s.Vinayaka Mines and Minerals challenging the entire proceedings in C.C.No.28077/2010 including the order dated 28.8.2010. The said petition was registered as Criminal Petition No.7207/2012. 11. This Court by order dated 27.1.2015, dismissed the said petition by recording thus: “The petitioner has challenged the settlement arrived between the parties in C.C. No.28077/2010 and consequent order dated 28.08.2010. The very order was under challenge before this court in Crl.P 6019/2010. This court by order dated 20.04.2011 dismissed the petition. 2. The petitioner cannot agitate the matter time and again. Therefore, the petition is dismissed.” 12. This is the third petition in succession under Section 482 Cr.P.C. The prayer in this petition is also to quash the entire proceedings in C.C.No.28077/2010. This was precisely the prayer in Criminal Petition No.7207/2012. 13. In substance, the ground urged by Dr Halashetty, is that, the petitioner is a victim of misrepresentation and fraud. This was the principal contention urged in Criminal Petition No.6019/2010. 14. It is relevant to note that, the petitioner’s prayer in Criminal Petition No.7207/2012 was to quash proceedings in C.C.No.28077/2010 including the order dated 28.08.2010 passed by the Lok-adalat. In the instant petition also, the petitioner has sought quashing of proceedings in C.C.No.28077/2010. The order dated 27.1.2015 in Criminal Petition No.7207/2012 has attained finality. 15. The proceedings in C.C.No.28077/2010 stood concluded with the order passed by the Lok-adalat. Petitioner, without complying with the terms of settlement has filed three successive criminal petitions before this Court including the present one. The following ground contained in the petition was pressed by Dr.Halashetty and the same reads as follows: “7. Petitioner realizing the fraud played on him as far as the so called statement is concerned, filed a Crl.Pn. No.6019/2010 before this Hon’ble Court seeking to set aside the order dated 28.8.2010 passed by the learned Magistrate in C.C.No.28077/2010. this Hon’ble Court initially entertained the Criminal petition, stayed the proceedings and ultimately when the matter was taken up for hearing on 20.4.2011 dismissed the Criminal Petition as the Court did not find any merit in the contention of the petitioner. Copy of the said order is herein produced as ANNEXURE-D.” 16. this Hon’ble Court initially entertained the Criminal petition, stayed the proceedings and ultimately when the matter was taken up for hearing on 20.4.2011 dismissed the Criminal Petition as the Court did not find any merit in the contention of the petitioner. Copy of the said order is herein produced as ANNEXURE-D.” 16. A careful perusal of the above pleading does not disclose any details as to who played fraud and what misrepresentation was made to the petitioner. The same ground was reiterated during the hearing. 17. It is not in dispute that, this Court by order dated 27.1.2013 has dismissed petitioner’s second petition bearing Criminal Petition No.7207/2012 for quashing the proceedings before the Trial Court. The said order has attained finality. The prayers contained in this Writ Petition as also in Criminal Petition No.7207/202 are principally the same. 18. Dr Halashetty, placing reliance on the aforementioned decisions of Supreme Court of India in Jalour Singh’s case and Bharvagi Constructions’ case (supra), sought to urge that, only Writ Petition is maintainable against an order passed by the Lok-adalat. He pressed paragraph No.12 in Jalour Singh’s case (State of Punjab and Ors. v. Jalour Singh and Ors., (2008) 2 SCC 660 ) supra) and the same reads as follows: “12. It is true that where an award is made by the Lok Adalat in terms of a settlement arrived at between the parties (which is duly signed by parties and annexed to the award of the Lok Adalat), it becomes final and binding on the parties to the settlement and becomes executable as if it is a decree of a civil court, and no appeal lies against it to any court. If any party wants to challenge such an award based on settlement, it can be done only by filing a petition under Article 226 and/or Article 227 of the Constitution, that too on very limited grounds. But where no compromise or settlement is signed by the parties and the order of the Lok Adalat does not refer to any settlement, but directs the respondent to either make payment if it agrees to the order, or approach the High Court for disposal of appeal on merits, if it does not agree, is not an award of the Lok Adalat. The question of challenging such an order in a petition under Article 227 does not arise. The question of challenging such an order in a petition under Article 227 does not arise. As already noticed, in such a situation, the High Court ought to have heard and disposed of the appeal on merits.” 19. In Bharvagi Constructions’ case (supra2), he relied upon paragraph No.28 and the same reads as follows: “28. In the light of clear pronouncement of the law by this Court, we are of the opinion that the only remedy available to the aggrieved person(respondents herein/plaintiffs) was to file a writ petition under Article 226 and/or 227 of the Constitution of India in the High Court for challenging the award dated 22.08.2007 passed by the Lok Adalat. It was then for the writ Court to decide as to whether any ground was made out by the writ petitioners for quashing the award and, if so, whether those grounds are sufficient for its quashing.” 20. It is relevant that in this Writ Petition, the petitioner has prayed for quashing entire proceedings in C.C.No.28077/2010. This was precisely the prayer in Criminal Petition No.7207/2012. Thus, the order passed in Criminal Petition No.7207/2012 having attained finality and petitioner having failed in two earlier petitions, this petition also must fail on the ground that the petitioner did not challenge the earlier orders passed by this Court. Further, there is no specific prayer with regard to the order passed by the Lok-adalat in this writ petition. 21. In the circumstances, I am of the considered view that the petitioner has attempted to circumvent the order dated 27.01.2015 passed in Criminal Petition No.7207/2012 by filing this Writ petition, which is third petition in succession. Hence, this is not a fit case to exercise jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 22. Resultantly, this writ petition must fail and it is accordingly dismissed. 23. In view of dismissal of main petition, I.A.No.1/2015 for release of the amount in deposit does not survive for consideration and the same stands disposed of. No costs.