Court upholds settlement at Mediation Center as final decree, quashes Magistrate's order.

The High Court allowed the petitions, finding the settlement at the Mediation Center to be a decree that cannot be challenged. It deemed the impugned order illegal and contrary to law, directing the Magistrate to pass a judgment against the respondent promptly based on the mediation statement. The court held that the Supreme Court decision cited by the trial court did not support the respondent's case as proceedings had advanced. Consequently, the High Court quashed the Metropolitan Magistrate's order and granted costs to the petitioner, disposing of all pending applications.

---

---

Issues:
Petitions filed under Section 482 seeking relief for setting aside order due to territorial jurisdiction issue.

Analysis:
The petitioner filed a Criminal Complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act against the respondent. The court took cognizance of the complaint and issued a notice to the respondent. Subsequently, bailable warrants were issued when the respondent failed to appear. The respondent appeared, took bail, and moved an application under Section 145(2) of the Act. Despite various court appearances and proceedings, the matter was eventually settled through mediation at Rohini District Courts. The settlement was recorded before the Magistrate, where the respondent admitted the claim and sought time to pay the agreed amount. However, the Metropolitan Magistrate returned the complaints for want of jurisdiction, citing a Supreme Court decision regarding the stage at which cases should be tried by the court where they are pending.

The High Court held that the settlement at the Mediation Center is deemed to be a decree and cannot be challenged. The court found the impugned order to be illegal and contrary to law. It noted that once a matter is settled through mediation, the trial court should have insisted on the respondent to pay the amount. Additionally, the court found that the Supreme Court decision cited by the trial court did not support the respondent's case since the proceedings had advanced to the stage of Section 145(2) of the Act. Despite issuing notices, the respondent did not appear. Consequently, the High Court quashed the order passed by the Metropolitan Magistrate and directed the Magistrate to pass an appropriate judgment against the respondent based on the statement made during mediation without further delay.

In conclusion, the High Court allowed the petitions, granting the petitioner costs to be paid by the respondent. All pending applications were disposed of accordingly.

---