S. No. 20 Regular Cause List IN THE HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH AT SRINAGAR CM(M) 15/2025 Bashir Ahmad Wani …Appellant/Petitioner(s) Through: Mr. Muzaffar Hamid Bhat, Advocate Vs. Imtiyaz Ahmad Shah ...Respondent(s) Through: Mr. Asrar Ali, Advocate CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD CHATTERJI KOUL, JUDGE O R D E R 28.07.2025 1. This petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. It challengesthe award dated 13.05.2023, passed by Lok Adalat. 2. Perusal of file reveals that respondent filed a complaint in terms of Negotiable Instrument Act read with Section 420 IPC against petitioner. The matter was referred to Special Lok Adalat, which was organized by District Legal Services Authority, Srinagar. 3. When the matter came up before Lok Adalat, both parties entered into compromise and on the basis of the said compromise, Special Lok Adalat passed the Award dated 13.05.2023, impugned herein. 4. Perusal of impugned Award reveals that before Special Lok Adalat,both the parties had been represented by their counsels and award had been passed in presence of both the parties as well as their counsels.The complaint had, thus, been settled in Lok Adalat. 5. As is gatherable from plain reading of impugned Award, accused/ petitioner had agreed to pay the cheque amount in installments. Even first installment of Rs.10,000/- had been paid by petitioner and acknowledgement thereof given by counsel for complainant/respondent. As regards second installment, petitioner had to pay Rs.4.00 Lakhs before 11th July 2023, and rest of the amount had been agreed to be paid within six months. 6. Nevertheless, now the petitioner challenges the award.It is argued by the learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Muzaffar Hamid Bhat, that the petitioner would not have entered into compromise but was forced to enter into a settlement in Lok Adalat as he was asked either to pay 20% of the cheque amount and face the trial or to enter into a compromise. Such a contention is unbelievablebecause of the fact that the petitioner herein was represented by a counsel when he entered into compromise before Lok Adalat. He was represented by Advocate Tej Pal who identified him there. So, it is hard to believe that petitioner was forcibly made to enter into a compromise. The petitioner has even paid first installment of Rs.10,000/- and agreed to pay second installment of Rs. 4.00Lakhs in July, 2023. 7. Nothing can be seen or observed from the award so passed to suggest or show any illegality contained therein and/or emerging therefrom. The offence punishable under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act is a compoundable offence,with respect whereof parties can compound and enter into compromise/settlement which in this case has been done. 8. The grounds taken up to challenge the said award in this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution are vague and frivolous. 9. In the event argument of learned counsel for the petitioner is entertained and/or considered, it would defeat the object of holding of Lok Adalats and settling the disputes before the Lok Adalats. 10. It appears that after having entered into compromise/settlement, the petitioner, to frustrate the award, is filing one after another case. What can be considered and decided while entertaining a petition under Article 227 is whether any illegality has been committed causing miscarriage of justice or anything done in contravention to the provisions of law. Further in this case, no illegality is found.The parties have, as is evident from the award, appeared before the Lok Adalat along with their counsels and then entered into a compromise. Therefore, no illegality is and/or can be found with the award. 11. Learned counsel for the petitioner is relying upon a judgment passed in a case titled as ‘State of Punjab & Anr. Vs. Jalour Singh & Ors on 18 January, 2008. The said judgement is not applicable to the case in hand. In the cited judgement/case, parties had not been present before the Lok Adalat whereas in the present case, parties had been present before the Lok Adalat. It cannot be heard saying from petitioner that in the present case Lok Adalat has adjudicated upon the case but has passed impugned Award on compromise/settlement, more particularly when petitioner, on his own, had paid Rs.10,000/- as first installment much before appearing before the Lok Adalat, i.e., on 11th May 2023 whereas Lok Adalat was held on 13th May 2023. This shows and suggests that parties had already been in the process of amicable settlement of the dispute. 12. The net result is that instant petition is without any merit. Hence dismissed. (VINOD CHATTERJIKOUL) JUDGE SRINAGAR 28.07.2025 Misba