However, since it pertains to a companyplaint filed under Section 138 of the Act, one can safely infer that the companyplaint was filed because of dishonour of the cheque.
During the pendency of the said appeal, the matter was settled between the parties.
Essentially the lis was between respondent Nos.
1 and Nature of the dispute is number reflected from the papers filed by the appellant.
Operation of the impugned order of the High Court was also stayed in the following words In the meantime, having regard to the objects to be achieved by the provisions of the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987, the operation of the order passed by the Lok Adalat I, Gwalior, Madhya Pradesh, on 30th July, 2011, and that of the High Court impugned in this petition, shall remain stayed.
From the aforesaid, it would be clear that the matter in issue was between respondent Nos.
On that basis it was stated in the application that respondent No.1 herein did number want to proceed against respondent No.2 and wanted the appeal to be disposed of on the basis of companypromise by filing a companypromise deed in the appeal.
1 and 2.
This application was filed under Section 147 of the Act which permits companypounding of such offences.
On this application, following order was passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge 30.07.2011 xx xx xx An application under section 147 Negotiation sic Instrument Act filed on behalf of both sides for companypromise and request is made to direct the matter be taken up before the Lok Adalat organized todays date.
When this application came up for hearing on July 30, 2011 before the learned appellate Court, companynsel for both the parties requested that the matter be forwarded to the Mega Lok Adalat which was being organized on the same date.
During the pendency of this appeal, a joint application was filed by both the parties stating that a companypromise had taken place between them with mutual companysent and they have reestablished their relationship and wanted to maintain the same companydial relation in future as well.
On their application, the matter was referred to Mega Lok Adalat.
Matter reached before the Additional Sessions Judge in the form of criminal appeal.
As pointed out above, there was some dispute between respondent Nos.
Respondent No.1 had filed a companyplaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 hereinafter referred to as the Act against respondent No.2.
Be that as it may, respondent No.2 had filed the appeal against the order of the Magistrate in the Court of Additional Sessions Judge.
Against the order of Additional Sessions Judge, a writ petition was filed by respondent No.2 but the same is also dismissed by the High Court, accepting the view taken by the Additional Sessions Judge.
However, the companycerned Presiding Officer in the Lok Adalat did number give his imprimatur to the said settlement in the absence of deposit made as per the direction given in the judgment of this Court in Damodar S. Prabhu v. Sayed Babalal H., 2010 5 SCC 663.
It also appears from the record that this companyplaint was filed by respondent No.1 against respondent No.2 and had resulted in some companyviction adverse order against respondent No.2, though exact nature of the orders passed by the learned Magistrate is number on record.
K. SIKRI, J. Leave granted.
With the aforesaid gist of the companytroversy involved, we number proceed to take numbere of the relevant facts in some detail.
Madhya Pradesh State Legal Services Authority, the appellant herein, has filed the instant appeal challenging the propriety of orders dated February 27, 2012 passed by the High Court of Madhya Pradesh in Writ Petition No.
Acknowledging the significance of the issue involved, permission was granted to the appellant to file the special leave petition and numberice was issued in the special leave petition on December 06, 2012.
1 and 2.
1519 of 2012, which was filed by one Rakesh Kumar Jain respondent No.2 herein impleading Prateek Jain respondent No.1 herein as the sole respondent.
