Jammu & Kashmir High Court – Srinagar Bench
Mehraj-Ud-Din Alaie vs Muneer Ahmad Malik on 27 April, 2026
Serial No. 11
Regular Cause List
HIGH COURT OF JAMMU& KASHMIR AND LADAKH
AT SRINAGAR
WP (C) No. 877/2026
CM No. 2297/2026
Mehraj-ud-Din Alaie, Age: 45 Years
S/O Ali Mohammad Alaie
R/O Zewan, Pantha Chowk, Srinagar.
... Petitioner(s)
Through: -
Mr S. S. Rizvi, Advocate.
V/s
Muneer Ahmad Malik
S/O Abdul Ahad Malik
R/O Zewan, Pantha Chowk.
... Respondent(s)
CORAM:
HON’BLE MR JUSTICE M. A. CHOWDHARY, JUDGE.
(ORDER)
27.04.2026
01. The Petitioner, through the medium of this Petition invoking
Writ jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution, seeks
quashing of Lok Adalat Order/ Award dated 13th of December, 2025,
arising out of a Complaint, execution of which is pending before the Court
of learned Judicial Magistrate (Munsiff), Pampore under Section 138 of the
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (“N. I. Act” for short), being an abuse of
process of law.
02. The Petitioner, in this Petition, has pleaded that a baseless,
false and frivolous Complaint came to be filed by the Respondent herein
against the Petitioner before the Court below, cognizance of which was
taken by the learned Magistrate and, without application of mind, the
proceedings were initiated; that the Complainant/ Respondent herein had
totally failed to prove prima facie case on the basis of which cognizance
ought not to have been taken, inasmuch as, the Complainant even did not
substantiate any offence with regard to the N. I. Act, as such, the
Complainant/ Respondent herein had no reason to prosecute the Petitioner.
03. It is further pleaded by the Petitioner that the impugned Lok
Adalat Award dated 13th of December, 2025 has been assailed on the
ground that the compromise, on the basis of which the Award was passed,
was not voluntary and with free will or consent of the Petitioner, as the
Petitioner had been pressurized, threatened and also constrained on the
basis of two Court warrants; that the learned Magistrate had failed to satisfy
himself as to whether the compromise was genuine or had been entered into
with free will and consent; that the compromise suffered from material
irregularities as it did not disclose the full facts of the business transactions,
reducing the amount substantially without valid reason; and that the Court
had no jurisdiction to entertain the Complaint/ compromise because of lack
of territorial jurisdiction as the application ought to have been filed before
the District Judge concerned.
04. The learned Counsel for the Petitioner has vehemently
submitted that the impugned Lok Adalat Order/ Award, based on the so-
called compromise between the parties, was an abuse of process of law and
hence the same is liable to be set aside. He, thus, prayed that the impugned
Order/ Award be set aside, relegating the parties to the Trial Court for
further proceeding in the matter with regard to trial of the Complaint.
05. Heard and considered.
06. At the very outset, it needs to be kept in mind that as per
Section 21 of the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987, every Award made
by a Lok Adalat shall be final and binding on all the parties to the dispute
and no appeal shall lie to any Court against the Award. However, as per the
laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in case titled ‘Bhargavi
Constructions v. Kothakapu Muthyam Reddy, (2018) 13 SCC 480′ as
well as in ‘State of Punjab & Anr. v. Jalour Singh & Ors., (2008) 2 SCC
660′, challenge to an Award of the Lok Adalat can be made only by filing a
Writ Petition under Article 226 and/ or Article 227 of the Constitution of
India and, that too, on very limited grounds.
07. It appears that the Respondent had filed a Complaint against
the Petitioner before the Court below, alleging therein that the Petitioner, as
accused, had received an amount from the Complainant-Respondent with
the condition that he will provide suitable plot of land to the Complainant
for residential purposes and, therefore, the Complainant was having lawful
transactions with the accused; that the cheques were presented to the
concerned Bank, which came to be dishonoured due to “Insufficient
Funds” in the account of the Petitioner-accused and hence, a Complaint
was made.
08. During the pendency of the aforesaid Complaint, a National
Lok Adalat was organized on 13th of December, 2025, wherein the
Complaint between the parties under Section 138 of the N. I. Act was also
referred and taken up. The matter was amicably resolved/ settled between
the parties, who reached a written settlement in the shape of a ‘Compromise
Deed’, which was taken on record and the matter was disposed of in terms
of the said compromise vide the impugned Order/ Award.
09. The recitals of the compromise, inter alia, provided that the
Petitioner-accused had admitted the liability and made a confession that he
had issued cheques in favour of the Complainant-Respondent herein, as
there was a business transaction between them and admitted that he will
liquidate the liability, whereafter, both the parties had agreed that the
Petitioner-accused will pay an amount of Rs. 9.50 lacs towards the
Respondent-Complainant, instead of Rs. 13.00 lacs, which is the total
cheques’ amount in question which was accepted by the Complainant to be
liquidated within two months from the date of the compromise which was
taken on record by the Court on 13th of December, 2025 and the statements
of the parties were recorded. The Petitioner-accused attested the
compromise and both the parties had appended their signatures as
Complainant and accused on the impugned Award as well, as a token of
compromise.
10. The plea raised by the learned Counsel for the Petitioner that
the Petitioner was forced into a compromise which was made basis of the
impugned Order/ Award of the Lok Adalat is simply not tenable in view of
the fact that the Lok Adalat was organized in a Court of law and had there
been any pressure or anything like that, the same could have been brought
to the notice of the available Judicial Officer, who was presiding over the
Lok Adalat. After issuance of the cheques and then entering into a
compromise with the Respondent-Complainant, the Petitioner-accused has
turned around and raised a plea which, on the face of it, is un-acceptable
before this Court.
11. Viewed thus, the present Petition is found to be misconceived,
as such, the same is dismissed in limine, along with the connected CM.
(M. A. CHOWDHARY)
JUDGE
SRINAGAR
April 27th, 2026
“TAHIR”
Tahir Manzoor Bhat
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this
document
