Madan Lal Gupta v. Hakim Singh), Under Section

1. Vakalatnama has been filed on behalf of Shri Varunendra Kishore Dwivedi (A/V 1019/2024) & Dhananjay Gupta (D/S 551/2017), counsel for opposite party no.2, is taken on record.

2. Heard Shri Pradeep Kumar Tiwari, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri S.K. Singh, learned AGA for the State as well as Shri Varunendra Kishore Dwivedi & Dhananjay Gupta, counsel for opposite party no.2.

3. This application under Section 528 BNSS has been filed by the applicant to quash the order dated 18.02.2025 as well as order dated 02.09.2023 passed by Presiding Officer, Additional Court No.2, Agra in Complaint Case No. 9520 of 2021 (Madan Lal Gupta Vs. Hakim Singh), Under Section 138 N.I. Act, Police Station- Sadar Bazar, District- Agra pending in the Court of Presiding Officer, Additional Court No.2, Agra.

4. The case of the applicant is that a complaint came to be preferred by the opposite party no. 2 against the applicant that with respect to discharge of the liability, the applicant herein had drawn a cheque of Rs. 7 lakhs which came to be dishonoured, followed by a statutory demand notice and the applicant was summoned and an application under Section 143-A of the N.I. Act stood preferred by the opposite party no. 2 seeking 20% of the interim compensation being Rs. 1,40,000/- out of the total amount of Rs. 7,00,000/- against which the applicant preferred a criminal revision No. 619 of 2023 which was rejected on 06.02.2025 by the court of Additional Sessions Judge, Court No. 1, Agra. 2 NA528 No. 9845 of 2025

5. Questioning both the orders, the applicant has filed the present application.

6. Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that court below in patent error of law apparent from the face of the record in granting interim compensation being 20% Rs. 1,40,000/- out of total amount of Rs.7,00,000/- as merely on asking the interim compensation has been accorded without considering the mandate of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Rakesh Ranjan Srivastava v. State of Jharkand and another; [2024] 3 S.C.R. 438. He submits that there are various criteria which have been adhered to including the discussion on the prima facie case, the case set up by the complainant, the defence of the accused, quantum of compensation, in case, the Court comes to the conclusion that compensation is to be awarded, financial distress of the accused as well as other factors relatable to the nature of transaction, relationship of the parties etc. Submission is that once the said exercise is lacking, thus, the order be set aside and the matter remitted back to pass fresh order.

7. Learned AGA as well as counsel appearing for the opposite party no. 2 on the other hand submits that the issues stands crystallized in view of the judgment in the case of Rakesh Ranjan Srivastava (supra) and according to them, the order be set aside and the matter remitted back to pass fresh order.

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

9. The Court finds that there has been complete non-adherence of the mandate of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Rakesh Ranjan Srivastava (supra), whereby the Hon'ble Apex Court has clearly observed in para-19 as under: "19. Subject to what is held earlier, the main conclusions can be summarised as follows: 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 3 NA528 No. 9845 of 2025 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."

10. Here the grant of interim compensation has been accorded also without considering the financial distress of the applicant apart from the other criteria which have been enumerated therein being quantum. Since the order in question is not inadherence to the principal so enunciated by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Rakesh Ranjan Srivastava (supra), thus, this Court is not issuing the notice but setting aside the orders.

11. Accordingly, the present application stands disposed of.

12. The order dated 18.02.2025 as well as order dated 02.09.2023 passed by Presiding Officer, Additional Court No.2, Agra in Complaint Case No. 9520 of 2021 (Madan Lal Gupta Vs. Hakim Singh) and order dated 06.02.2025 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Court No. 1, Agra in Criminal Revision No. 619 of 2023 are set aside.

13. The matter is remitted to back to the trial court to pass fresh order with most expedition. 4 NA528 No. 9845 of 2025

14. In order to facilitate expeditious disposal of the matter, the applicant is to furnish the certified copy of the order by 09.10..2025.

15. The court below post remand shall pass a fresh order strictly in accordance with law principle laid down in the case of Rakesh Ranjan Srivastava (supra). September 22, 2025 A. Prajapati (Vikas Budhwar,J.)

1. Vakalatnama has been filed on behalf of Shri Varunendra Kishore Dwivedi (A/V 1019/2024) & Dhananjay Gupta (D/S 551/2017), counsel for opposite party no.2, is taken on record.

2. Heard Shri Pradeep Kumar Tiwari, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri S.K. Singh, learned AGA for the State as well as Shri Varunendra Kishore Dwivedi & Dhananjay Gupta, counsel for opposite party no.2.

3. This application under Section 528 BNSS has been filed by the applicant to quash the order dated 18.02.2025 as well as order dated 02.09.2023 passed by Presiding Officer, Additional Court No.2, Agra in Complaint Case No. 9520 of 2021 (Madan Lal Gupta Vs. Hakim Singh), Under Section 138 N.I. Act, Police Station- Sadar Bazar, District- Agra pending in the Court of Presiding Officer, Additional Court No.2, Agra.

4. The case of the applicant is that a complaint came to be preferred by the opposite party no. 2 against the applicant that with respect to discharge of the liability, the applicant herein had drawn a cheque of Rs. 7 lakhs which came to be dishonoured, followed by a statutory demand notice and the applicant was summoned and an application under Section 143-A of the N.I. Act stood preferred by the opposite party no. 2 seeking 20% of the interim compensation being Rs. 1,40,000/- out of the total amount of Rs. 7,00,000/- against which the applicant preferred a criminal revision No. 619 of 2023 which was rejected on 06.02.2025 by the court of Additional Sessions Judge, Court No. 1, Agra. 2 NA528 No. 9845 of 2025

5. Questioning both the orders, the applicant has filed the present application.

6. Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that court below in patent error of law apparent from the face of the record in granting interim compensation being 20% Rs. 1,40,000/- out of total amount of Rs.7,00,000/- as merely on asking the interim compensation has been accorded without considering the mandate of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Rakesh Ranjan Srivastava v. State of Jharkand and another; [2024] 3 S.C.R. 438. He submits that there are various criteria which have been adhered to including the discussion on the prima facie case, the case set up by the complainant, the defence of the accused, quantum of compensation, in case, the Court comes to the conclusion that compensation is to be awarded, financial distress of the accused as well as other factors relatable to the nature of transaction, relationship of the parties etc. Submission is that once the said exercise is lacking, thus, the order be set aside and the matter remitted back to pass fresh order.

7. Learned AGA as well as counsel appearing for the opposite party no. 2 on the other hand submits that the issues stands crystallized in view of the judgment in the case of Rakesh Ranjan Srivastava (supra) and according to them, the order be set aside and the matter remitted back to pass fresh order.

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

9. The Court finds that there has been complete non-adherence of the mandate of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Rakesh Ranjan Srivastava (supra), whereby the Hon'ble Apex Court has clearly observed in para-19 as under: "19. Subject to what is held earlier, the main conclusions can be summarised as follows: 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 3 NA528 No. 9845 of 2025 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."

10. Here the grant of interim compensation has been accorded also without considering the financial distress of the applicant apart from the other criteria which have been enumerated therein being quantum. Since the order in question is not inadherence to the principal so enunciated by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Rakesh Ranjan Srivastava (supra), thus, this Court is not issuing the notice but setting aside the orders.

11. Accordingly, the present application stands disposed of.

12. The order dated 18.02.2025 as well as order dated 02.09.2023 passed by Presiding Officer, Additional Court No.2, Agra in Complaint Case No. 9520 of 2021 (Madan Lal Gupta Vs. Hakim Singh) and order dated 06.02.2025 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Court No. 1, Agra in Criminal Revision No. 619 of 2023 are set aside.

13. The matter is remitted to back to the trial court to pass fresh order with most expedition. 4 NA528 No. 9845 of 2025

14. In order to facilitate expeditious disposal of the matter, the applicant is to furnish the certified copy of the order by 09.10..2025.

15. The court below post remand shall pass a fresh order strictly in accordance with law principle laid down in the case of Rakesh Ranjan Srivastava (supra). September 22, 2025 A. Prajapati (Vikas Budhwar,J.)