JUDGMENT : R. NARAYANA PISHARADI, J. 1. The petitioner is the complainant in the case C.C. No. 1218/2017 on the file of the Court of the Judicial First Class Magistrate-II, Neyyattinkara. 2. The petitioner had filed the complaint against the first respondent for an offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’). 3. The case was referred to mediation. A settlement was reached between the parties in the mediation conducted at the local Mediation Centre. As per the mediation agreement dated 31.07.2018 executed by the parties, the accused agreed to pay a total amount of Rs. 3,00,000/- to the complainant in full and final settlement of the case. An amount of Rs. 1,00,000/- as first instalment, had to be paid by the accused before 30.09.2018. The balance amount had to be paid by him before 15.12.2018. It was also agreed that, if the accused made default in payment of the amount before the date 15.12.2018, the complainant shall be entitled to proceed with the case. 4. On 09.07.2019, the learned Magistrate passed Ext.P3 order in the case, which reads as follows: “The accused and the complainant present. The complaint has been settled at the Local Mediation Centre and the report of settlement received. Perused the terms of the settlement and found lawful. Hence the complaint stands disposed of directing the execution for the realization of the amount agreed to be paid in the settlement. The terms of settlement shall form part of this Order.” 5. Ext.P3 order is challenged by the complainant in this original petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 6. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and also the first respondent/accused. 7. The impugned order passed by the learned Magistrate is ex facie illegal. The order passed by the learned Magistrate is like a decree in a suit. The accused in the case is not discharged or acquitted or convicted. Learned Magistrate has disposed of the complaint directing execution for realisation of the amount agreed to be paid in the mediation. The manner in which the execution of the order has to be made is not mentioned in the order. It appears that, while passing the impugned order, the learned Magistrate had in his mind the decision of the Supreme Court in Govindankutty Menon vs. Shaji, AIR 2012 SC 719 . 8. The manner in which the execution of the order has to be made is not mentioned in the order. It appears that, while passing the impugned order, the learned Magistrate had in his mind the decision of the Supreme Court in Govindankutty Menon vs. Shaji, AIR 2012 SC 719 . 8. Normally, cases involving prosecution for criminal offences are not fit to be referred to mediation. Afcons Infrastructure Limited vs. Cherian Varkey Constructions Company Private Limited, (2010) 8 SCC 24 . But, if the parties in a case under Section 138 of the Act are interested in referring the matter for mediation, it can be done only for the limited purpose of arriving at a settlement regarding the amount which the accused shall pay to the complainant. On reaching such settlement, when report of mediation is received by the court, the complainant may withdraw the complaint or he may file an application for compounding under Section 147 of the Act. The mediation agreement cannot form part of the judgment or order of the criminal court. The criminal court cannot rely on that agreement and pass an order in the nature of a decree relegating the parties to get the amount realised by filing execution petition. The dictum laid down by the Supreme Court in Govindankutty Menon (supra), with regard to an award passed by the Lok Adalat in a case under Section 138 of the Act, which is based on the deeming provision under Section 21 of the Legal Services Authorities Act, is not applicable to a mediation agreement. Sreelal vs. Murali Menon, 2014 (3) KHC 316 : 2014 (3) KLT 536 . 9. The dictum laid down in Sreelal (supra) was followed by this Court in Shiyas vs. Manoj Paul, ILR 2018 (2) Kerala 847. 10. In the instant case, the impugned order passed by the learned Magistrate is directly in conflict with the principles laid down by this Court in Sreelal (supra). Ext.P3 order is liable to be set aside. 11. Consequently, the original petition is allowed. Ext.P3 order passed by the learned Magistrate in the case C.C. No. 1218/2017 is set aside. The aforesaid case stands restored to file. Learned Magistrate shall proceed with the trial of the case, in accordance with law, ignoring the mediation agreement executed by the parties.