Ramveer Singh v. State of U.P & Anr.

Heard Sri Rahul Kumar Sharma, learned counsel for the applicant as well as Sri S.K. Singh, learned AGA for the State.

This is an application filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing the order dated 29.11.2024 passed by learned Additional Civil Judge, (J.D.)/FTC, Court No.1, Hathras, District Hathras in Complaint Case No.11657 of 2022 (Rajveer Singh v. Ramveer), under Section 138 N.I. Act, Police Station Kotwali Hathras, District Hathras to secure the ends of justice.

Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that a complaint stood filed by the opposite party no.2 against the applicant on 21.12.2022 relatable to commission of the offence under Section 138 N.I. Act with an allegation that a cheque of Rs.12 Lakhs bearing No.579069 dated 25.10.2022 stood dishonoured on 21.10.2022 and when it was again presented on 11.11.2022 then again it was dishonoured and, on 28.11.2022 a legal notice was issued.

Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that during the pendency of the said proceedings, an application under Section 143-A of the N.I. Act stood preferred by opposite party no.2 dated 13.12.2023, a copy whereof, is annexed as Annexure No.2 at page 17 of the paper book (certified copy). However, on the said application, the opposite party no.2 himself made an endorsement that he did not propose to press the said application. Relevant averments have been made in paragraph no.8 of the application, however, the court below allowed the said application on 29.11.2024 requiring the applicant to deposit 10% of the total amount of Rs.12 Lakhs totaling to Rs.1,20,000/-.

Learned counsel for the applicant has relied upon the judgment in the case of Rakesh Ranjan Srivastava v. State of Jharkhand & Anr. 2024 (3) SCR 438 (Criminal Appeal No.741 of 2024) so as to contend that the court while deciding an application of the complainant under Section 143-A of the N.I. Act, the Court has to evaluate the prima facie merits of the case relatable to the complainant and the defence of the accused and, only when a prima facie case is made out, interim compensation should be granted and defence is to be also considered on a prima facie basis and if the Court finds that the case warrants grant of interim compensation then several factors have to be taken into consideration, the nature of transaction, the relationship, if any, between the accused and the complainant and the quantum of the interim compensation and also financial condition of accused.

According to learned counsel for the applicant without adhering to the parameters as laid down in the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court straight away on mere asking interim compensation has been awarded. Additionally, it has been submitted that at once there happens to be an endorsement of the opposite party no.2/complainant that he does not press the application for interim compensation then the Court was not justified in awarding the same.

Learned AGA does not dispute the said fact. According to him, the exercise ought to have been undertaken in view of the law down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Rakesh Ranjan Srivastava (supra).

Having heard learned counsel for the parties and after perusing the submission made across the bar, the question which arises for determination is the fact as to whether the order which is impugned is inconfirmity and in consonance with the mandate of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Rakesh Ranjan Srivastava (supra) or not.

Apparently, the order which is impugned does not take into account the parameters and the test so enumerated therein. Thus, in the opinion of the Court and all the factors as enumerated above ought to have been considered.

Accordingly, the order dated 29.11.2024 passed by Additional Civil Judge, (J.D.)/FTC, Court No.1, Hathras, District Hathras in Complaint Case No.11657 of 2022 (Rajveer Singh v. Ramveer), under Section 138 N.I. Act, Police Station Kotwali Hathras, District Hathras, is set aside.

The matter is remitted back to the court below to pass a fresh order strictly, in accordance with law, in light of the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Rakesh Ranjan Srivastava (supra) with most expedition. Order Date :- 5.4.2025 S.A.