High Court

was issued. Learned counsel for the applicant next contended that on 22.11.2023 with respect to the earlier complaint referable to cheque of Rs. 2,40,000/- being dishonoured, an application under Section 143-A of the N.I. Act stood preferred by the opposite party no. 2 to which the applicant submitted his objection on

02.03.2024, however, on 06.08.2024, the Court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court no. 18, Etah proceeded to accord interim compensation to the tune of Rs. 36,000/- out of Rs. 2,40,000/- in favour of the applicant.

5. Learned counsel for applicant has further submitted that the said order cannot be sustained in the eyes of law in view of the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Rakesh Ranjan Srivastava v. State of Jharkhand & Another; (2024) 3 SCR 438, wherein brought para-meters have been earmarked for deciding the proceedings under Section 143-A of the Act, according to which, the following conditions are as under: "a. The exercise of power under sub-section (1) of Section 143A is discretionary. The provision is directory and not mandatory. The word "may" used in the provision cannot be construed as "shall." b. While deciding the prayer made under Section 143A, the Court must record brief reasons indicating consideration of all relevant factors. c. The broad parameters for exercising the discretion under Section 143A are as follows: i. The Court will have to prima facie evaluate the merits of the case made out by the complainant and the merits of the defence pleaded by the accused in the reply to the application. The financial distress of the accused can also be a consideration. ii. A direction to pay interim compensation can be issued, only if the complainant makes out a prima facie case. iii. If the defence of the accused is found to be prima facie plausible, the Court may exercise discretion in refusing to grant interim compensation. iv. If the Court concludes that a case is made out to grant interim compensation, it will also have to apply its mind to the quantum of interim compensation to be granted. While doing so, the Court will have to consider several factors such as the nature of the transaction, the relationship, if any, between the accused and the complainant, etc. v. There could be several other relevant factors in the peculiar facts of a given case, which cannot be exhaustively stated. The parameters stated above are not exhaustive." 6. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that there has been no consideration regarding the prima facie evaluation of the merits of the case while considering into the merits of the defence pleaded by the accused in his application, financial distress and also the fact that a prima facie case existed in favour of the person who sought interim compensation and the para-meters for exercising discretion while considering several aspect such as nature of transaction, relationship between the accused and the applicant. Submission is that though there happens to be a faint recital of the defence taken by the applicant who was the accused but there has been no consideration. He submits that the order be set aside and matter be remitted back to the court below to pass fresh order.

7. Learned State Law Officer has not disputed the said fact, according to him, the mandate in the case of Rakesh Ranjan Srivastava (supra) is to be considered in correct perspectives and the court below was under legal obligation to consider each and every aspect of the matter.

8. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the records.

9. The sole question which arises for consideration is whether the order of the court below dated 06.08.2024, according interim compensation to the tune of 15% being Rs. 36,000/- out of Rs. 2,40,000/- is within the para-meters so sought to be enunciated in the compensation in the case of Rakesh Ranjan Srivastava (supra). Apparently, the said exercise is lacking, particularly, when only an attempt sought to be made to recite the objection of the accused, however, there has been no consideration of the points which have been enunciated by the Hon'ble Apex Court.

10. Accordingly, the present application stands allowed.

11. The order dated 06.08.2024 passed by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court no. 18, Etah in Complaint Case No. 5900 of 2023 is set aside.

12. The matter is remitted back to the court below to pass fresh orders by 30.04.2025 in order to facilitate the expeditious disposal of the said proceedings.

13. The applicant shall furnish the copy of the order by 04.04.2025 before the court below and on the said motion, the Court shall put to notice to opposite party and pass appropriate orders by

30.04.2025.

14. The Registrar (compliance) shall also communicate the order to the court below.

15. Since the order has been passed in the presence of the counsel for the applicant thus it will deem it to fit, the applicant will full knowledge about the passing of the order.

16. In the event of default of any of the conditions by the applicant as referred to above, the protection shall stand vacated without reference to the Bench. Order Date :- 24.3.2025 A. Prajapati

was issued. Learned counsel for the applicant next contended that on 22.11.2023 with respect to the earlier complaint referable to cheque of Rs. 2,40,000/- being dishonoured, an application under Section 143-A of the N.I. Act stood preferred by the opposite party no. 2 to which the applicant submitted his objection on

02.03.2024, however, on 06.08.2024, the Court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court no. 18, Etah proceeded to accord interim compensation to the tune of Rs. 36,000/- out of Rs. 2,40,000/- in favour of the applicant.

5. Learned counsel for applicant has further submitted that the said order cannot be sustained in the eyes of law in view of the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Rakesh Ranjan Srivastava v. State of Jharkhand & Another; (2024) 3 SCR 438, wherein brought para-meters have been earmarked for deciding the proceedings under Section 143-A of the Act, according to which, the following conditions are as under: "a. The exercise of power under sub-section (1) of Section 143A is discretionary. The provision is directory and not mandatory. The word "may" used in the provision cannot be construed as "shall." b. While deciding the prayer made under Section 143A, the Court must record brief reasons indicating consideration of all relevant factors. c. The broad parameters for exercising the discretion under Section 143A are as follows: i. The Court will have to prima facie evaluate the merits of the case made out by the complainant and the merits of the defence pleaded by the accused in the reply to the application. The financial distress of the accused can also be a consideration. ii. A direction to pay interim compensation can be issued, only if the complainant makes out a prima facie case. iii. If the defence of the accused is found to be prima facie plausible, the Court may exercise discretion in refusing to grant interim compensation. iv. If the Court concludes that a case is made out to grant interim compensation, it will also have to apply its mind to the quantum of interim compensation to be granted. While doing so, the Court will have to consider several factors such as the nature of the transaction, the relationship, if any, between the accused and the complainant, etc. v. There could be several other relevant factors in the peculiar facts of a given case, which cannot be exhaustively stated. The parameters stated above are not exhaustive." 6. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that there has been no consideration regarding the prima facie evaluation of the merits of the case while considering into the merits of the defence pleaded by the accused in his application, financial distress and also the fact that a prima facie case existed in favour of the person who sought interim compensation and the para-meters for exercising discretion while considering several aspect such as nature of transaction, relationship between the accused and the applicant. Submission is that though there happens to be a faint recital of the defence taken by the applicant who was the accused but there has been no consideration. He submits that the order be set aside and matter be remitted back to the court below to pass fresh order.

7. Learned State Law Officer has not disputed the said fact, according to him, the mandate in the case of Rakesh Ranjan Srivastava (supra) is to be considered in correct perspectives and the court below was under legal obligation to consider each and every aspect of the matter.

8. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the records.

9. The sole question which arises for consideration is whether the order of the court below dated 06.08.2024, according interim compensation to the tune of 15% being Rs. 36,000/- out of Rs. 2,40,000/- is within the para-meters so sought to be enunciated in the compensation in the case of Rakesh Ranjan Srivastava (supra). Apparently, the said exercise is lacking, particularly, when only an attempt sought to be made to recite the objection of the accused, however, there has been no consideration of the points which have been enunciated by the Hon'ble Apex Court.

10. Accordingly, the present application stands allowed.

11. The order dated 06.08.2024 passed by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court no. 18, Etah in Complaint Case No. 5900 of 2023 is set aside.

12. The matter is remitted back to the court below to pass fresh orders by 30.04.2025 in order to facilitate the expeditious disposal of the said proceedings.

13. The applicant shall furnish the copy of the order by 04.04.2025 before the court below and on the said motion, the Court shall put to notice to opposite party and pass appropriate orders by

30.04.2025.

14. The Registrar (compliance) shall also communicate the order to the court below.

15. Since the order has been passed in the presence of the counsel for the applicant thus it will deem it to fit, the applicant will full knowledge about the passing of the order.

16. In the event of default of any of the conditions by the applicant as referred to above, the protection shall stand vacated without reference to the Bench. Order Date :- 24.3.2025 A. Prajapati