The High Court · 2025

2. The State of Telangana, Rep. by Public Prosecutor, High Court for the State of Telangana, Hyderabad. ...Accused/Respondent Counsel for the Petitioner(s): Sri. N Srushman reddy Counsel for the Respondent No.1 : Gulam Rabbani Counsel for the Respondent No.2: Sri E.Ganesh, Asst. Public Prosecutor The Court made the following: ORDER THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE E.V. VENUIiOPAL CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.122L Olt 2024 ORDER: This Criminal Revision Case is filed against t-he order passed by the learned I Additional Junior Civil Judge-,:rrm-l Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class at Nizamabad in (-)r1.M.P.No .947 of 2024 in S.1'.C.N.1.No.35 of 2023 datedO8.ll.2024.

2. Hearrl Mr. N.Srushman Reddy, learned coun:;e l for petitioner- complainarLt; Mr. Gulam Rabbani, learned counsel trr the unofficial respondent No. 1; and Mr. E.Ganesh, learned r\ssistalt Public Prosecutor.

3. An a.pplication was hled by the revision p:titioner under Section 14I)-A of the Negotiable Instruments Act (ltrr short "NI Act") praying the tral Court to direct the accused to pay interim compensation of 2O%o of the amount to the petitione: and the same was dismissed vide order dated 08.1 I.2O24 in Crl.M.P.No.947 of 2024 on the ground that the accused has not adoptr:c to any dilatory tactics to clelay the judgment that may be passed against him or devise any strateg/ pima facie to constrain the Court in exercising its jurisdiction under 143-4 of the NI Act. Aggrieve 1 by the same, the petitioner has filed the present Criminal Revision ()ase. 1 Z

4. The main contention of the revision petitioner-complainant is that the learned trial Judge erred in not consideritg pima facie case made out by the petitioner complainant that the cheque was issued to discharge the legally enforceable debt. It is further contended that learned trial Judge failed to observe that respbndent- the accused agreed that he is due to pay an amount to the petitioner and requested time for compromise by paying the due amount and further dragged the matter for settlement of the case. It is further contended that learned trial Judge ought to lnave pima facie evaluate the merits of the case and granted compensation and also contended that the learned trial Judge should have allowed the petition hled under Section 143-A of NI Act and granted compensation to the petitioner. It is further contended that the Court below ought to have seen all the relevant factors for grant of compensation are fulfrlled and allowed the petition for grant of interim compensation under Section 143-A of NI Act for which petitioner is entitled to and hence, sought to set aside the order passed by the trial Court.

5. On the other hand, respondent No.l-accused filed counter denying the averments in the revision. He contended that the subject cheque was issued on behalf of the vendor for which he is not liable as there is no iegally enforceable debt. He also contended thgt Section 143-4 of N.I. Act requires prima focie evaluation case before ordering compensation and that the presumption under , \ \ 3 Section 139 of N.I. Act is rebuttable and compens:r_ion can only be ordered rf pima facie case is made out by the petiL or Ler-complainant. It is further contended that the power of the Oo rrt for grant of interim compensation under Section 143-A cf N.l. Act is discretiona.ry and that the accused is required to rily up to 2Oo/o of the cheque amount but it is not mandatory. Learn::rl counsel for the respondent-accused contended that respondent always appeared before the trial Court and not even a single adjourr. nrent was sought on behalf of the respondent and that the trial (lourt has rightly dismissed lhe relief sought by the petitioner unde r lie ction 143-4 of NI Act and hence sought to dismiss the revision trr, confirming the order passed by the learned trial Court. In support r>: his contention, learned counsel for respondent No.l-accused reliec -lpon a decision rendered by the Hon'ble High Court of Anrltrra Pradesh in uDr.Mgneni Salz-brr.siua Rao a. State of A.P repre.sented bg public Prosecutor, High Court oJ A,P and. another,,I lnd sought for dismissal of the criminal revision case.

6. Having regard to the submissions made by thc learned counsel for the respective parties and also keeping in vierv -he intention of the parties to compromise the matter, this criminal revision case is disposed of directing the learned I Additional Junior Civil Judge- cum-l Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class .at Nizamabad to ' zorz 1ly art lcrt) 358 (A.p) I I 4 conduct the trial in S.T.C.N.I.No.35 of 2023 as expeditiously as possible, and pass a reasoned judgment strictly in accordance with law. oT Miscellaneous applications, if any, pending shall stand closed. Sd/. P. CH. NAGABHUSHAMBA E UTY REGISTRAR //TRUE COPY// S CTION if,FFICER

1. The I Additional Junior Civil Judge- Cum- I Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, At, Nizamabad.

2. One CC to Sri. N Srushman Reddy, Advocate [OPUC] 3. Two CCs to Public Prosecutor, High Court forthe State of Telangana. [OUT] 4. Two CD Copies. YIR/GH :I I I I i I I I I i HIGH COURT DATED:2310112025 I I I ORDER CRLRC.N0.1221 of 2024 2,1 siP 2u5 :- ,i i.t i. ^*zj' .',-,' ., .../ DISPOSING OF THE CRIMINAL REVISION CASE. t