Anil Kumar Yadav v. Renu Tomar others) under Section

Hon'ble Apex Court in Rakesh Ranjan Shrivastava Vs. The State of Jharkhand & another (2024) 4 SCC 419.

6. Per contra, it has been argued by the learned counsel for respondent no.2 that the learned Magistrate as well as learned Revisional Court have passed reasoned order based on facts and in accordance with law.

7. The relevant provision under Section 143-A of N.I. Act states as under: "143-A. Power to direct interim compensation.-(1) Notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), the Court trying an offence under Section 138 may order the drawer of the cheque to pay interim compensation to the complainant- 3 A227 No. 1850 of 2025 (a) in a summary trial or a summons case, where he pleads not guilty to the accusation made in the complaint; and (b) in any other case, upon framing of charge. (2) The interim compensation under sub-section (1) shall not exceed twenty per cent of the cheque amount. --------------------------------------"

8. The Hon'ble Apex Court has discussed the above provision in detail in the case law (2024) 4 SCC 419 and held in para 19 that the power under sub- section (1) of Section 143-A of N.I. Act is discretionary. The Hon'ble Apex Court has laid down the parameter for factors to be considered while exercising discretion in dealing with application under Section 143-A of N.I. Act. The para 27 of these parameters are being reproduced hereinunder: "27. Subject to what is held earlier, the main conclusions can be summarised as follows:

27.1. The exercise of power under sub-section (1) of Section 143-A is discretionary. The provision is directory and not mandatory. The word "may" used in the provision cannot be construed as "shall".

27.2. While deciding the prayer made under Section 143-A, the court must record brief reasons indicating consideration of all relevant factors.

27.3. The broad parameters for exercising the discretion under Section 143-A are as follows:

27.3.1. 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.

27.3.2. A direction to pay interim compensation can be issued, only if the complainant makes out a prima facie case.

27.3.3. If the defence of the accused is found to be prima facie plausible, the court may exercise discretion in refusing to grant interim compensation.

27.3.4. 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 4 A227 No. 1850 of 2025 as the nature of the transaction, the relationship, if any, between the accused and the complainant, etc.

27.3.5. 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."

9. To understand the crux of the matter, it is also relevant to mention the relevant part of the order dated 07.05.2024 passed by the learned Magistrate in the Complaint Case No.1335 of 2021 which is as under: " -------------------- प्ऴावली का अवलोकन िकया। ्ऺस्तुत पिरवाद चैक अना्शण से संबंिधत है, िजसमें अिभयु्व को धारा 138 एन० आई०एक्ट िवचारण हेतु तलब िकया गया है। अिभयु्व ने न्यायालय में उपिस्थत होकर अपनी जमानत करा ली है। अिभयु्व का बयान मुिल्जम अंिकत हो चुका है। संशोिधत एन०आई०एक्ट 2018 में िदये गये ्ऺावधान के अनुसार धारा 143A एन०आई०एक्ट में किथत अंिकत धनरािश का 20% पिरवादी को िदलाये जाने का ्ऺावधान िकया गया है। अिभयु्वा ्षारा अपनी आपि्त में िकये गये समस्त कथन साष्य का िवषय हैं। आपि्त के साथ दािखल सभी ्ऺप्ऴ छाया्ऺित होने के कारण साष्य में ्षा्ि नहीं है। माननीय उच्चतम न्यायालय ्षारा ्ऺितपािदत िविध ्िवस्था जी० जे० राजा बनाम तेजरात सुराना (2019) सु्ऺीम कोटर् में यह अवधािरत िकया गया है िक संशोिधत एन०आई०एक्ट 2018 में िदये गये ्ऺावधान के अनुसार धारा 143A एन०आई०एक्ट का ्ऺभाव भूतल्षी होगा पूवर् ्िािपत नही होगा। ्ऺस्तुत ्ऺकरण वषर् 2019 से संबंिधत है और संशोधन आदेश िदनांक

01.09.2018 से ्ऺभावी है। तदनुसार ्ऺाथर्ना प्ऴ स्वीकार िकये जाने योग्य है। आदेश ्ऺाथर्ना प्ऴ िदनांिकत-04.07.2023 स्वीकार िकया जाता है तथा आपि्त िनस्तािरत की जाती है। अिभयु्व को आदेिशत िकया जाता है िक वह किथत चेक में अंिकत धनरािश का 20% अंतिरम ्ऺितकर अंकन 170420/- रूपये िनयत ितिथ पर पिरवादी को अदा करें। प्ऴावली वास्ते अि्षम आदेश िदनांक- 06.06.2024 को पेश हो।"

10. A perusal of the above impugned order dated 07.05.2024 shows that the learned Magistrate has mentioned, in short, the grounds of application under Section 143-A of N.I. Act as well as the defence taken in the objections filed by the accused, but, without prima facie evaluating the merits of the case and the merits of the defence, the impugned order dated 07.05.2024 has been passed only mentioning that the accused has been summoned under Section 138 N.I. Act, who has been enlarged on bail and the statement of accused is also recorded. The learned Magistrate has awarded 20 percent of the amount 5 A227 No. 1850 of 2025 mentioned in the impugned cheque as interim compensation under Section 143-A of N.I. Act without giving any reason as to on what basis the learned Magistrate has computed the amount, whereas sub-section 2 of Section 143- A of N.I. Act provides that the interim compensation shall not exceed 20 percent of the cheque amount. Thus, the order dated 07.05.2024 appears incorrect as the learned Magistrate has not paid any heed to the provisions of Section 143-A of N.I. Act and parameter laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court and in a cursory manner the learned Magistrate has allowed the application.

11. The order of learned Magistrate was challenged before the Court of Sessions in a criminal revision but the Revisional Court i.e. Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Court No.07, Ghaziabad has also passed the order dated 07.11.2024 in the same way and dismissed the Revision without assigning any reason about prima facie evaluation of the case on merits and the consideration of defence raised by the accused. It was required for the Revisional Court to examine only the legality, correctness, impropriety, irregularity of the impugned order passed by the learned Magistrate but the learned Revisional Court has failed to do so because the requirement of application under Section 143-A of N.I. Act was not considered in the parameters and guidelines laid by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Rakesh Ranjan Shrivastava (supra) and also as provided in Section 143-A of N.I. Act, therefore, the learned Revisional Court has also committed error in passing the order dated 07.11.2024.

12. In this petition the facts in abundance have been mentioned in the petition as well as in the Revision memo filed before the learned Revisional Court but those facts are to be considered in the trial pending before the learned Magistrate, hence no view can be given on those facts.

13. After considering the material available on record and the arguments of both the parties and in view of above, this Court finds that the learned Magistrate has not considered the material and the evidences available on record and without evaluating those facts, evidences and the defence has passed the impugned order dated 07.05.2024 without applying the principles laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Rakesh Ranjan Srivastava (supra) and the provisions contained in Section 143-A of N.I. Act and thus, has committed the manifest error which cannot be allowed to stand. In the same way, the learned Revisional Court has also not considered the 6 A227 No. 1850 of 2025 provisions of Section 143-A of N.I. Act and the principles laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court and passed the impugned order dated 07.11.2024, which is arbitrary and against the law.

14. Accordingly, the petition is allowed. The order dated 07.05.2024 passed by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate/ Additional Civil Judge, (Senior Division), Court No.2, Ghaziabad in Complaint Case No.1335 of 2021 (Anil Kumar Yadav Vs. Renu Tomar) and judgment and order dated 07.11.2024 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Court No.07, District Ghaziabad in Criminal Revision No.348 of 2024 (Renu Tomar Vs. State of U.P. & another) are hereby set aside. The matter is remanded back to the Court of learned Magistrate to decide the application under Section 143-A of N.I. Act afresh, in accordance with law, after affording opportunity of hearing to all affected parties.

15. Further, it has been stated by the learned counsel for respondent no.2 that in a petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. this Court, in the year 2022, has directed the Trial Court to decide the case within stipulated time of three months but the case is still pending.

16. Considering the above facts, the Trial Court is directed to decide the Complaint Case No.1335 of 2021, under Section 138 N.I. Act, Police Station Sihani Gate, District Ghaziabad as early as possible, preferably within three months from the date of a certified copy of this order is produced before it by making all possible endeavour. October 16, 2025 CS/- (Divesh Chandra Samant,J.) CHANDAN SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Hon'ble Apex Court in Rakesh Ranjan Shrivastava Vs. The State of Jharkhand & another (2024) 4 SCC 419.

6. Per contra, it has been argued by the learned counsel for respondent no.2 that the learned Magistrate as well as learned Revisional Court have passed reasoned order based on facts and in accordance with law.

7. The relevant provision under Section 143-A of N.I. Act states as under: "143-A. Power to direct interim compensation.-(1) Notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), the Court trying an offence under Section 138 may order the drawer of the cheque to pay interim compensation to the complainant- 3 A227 No. 1850 of 2025 (a) in a summary trial or a summons case, where he pleads not guilty to the accusation made in the complaint; and (b) in any other case, upon framing of charge. (2) The interim compensation under sub-section (1) shall not exceed twenty per cent of the cheque amount. --------------------------------------"

8. The Hon'ble Apex Court has discussed the above provision in detail in the case law (2024) 4 SCC 419 and held in para 19 that the power under sub- section (1) of Section 143-A of N.I. Act is discretionary. The Hon'ble Apex Court has laid down the parameter for factors to be considered while exercising discretion in dealing with application under Section 143-A of N.I. Act. The para 27 of these parameters are being reproduced hereinunder: "27. Subject to what is held earlier, the main conclusions can be summarised as follows:

27.1. The exercise of power under sub-section (1) of Section 143-A is discretionary. The provision is directory and not mandatory. The word "may" used in the provision cannot be construed as "shall".

27.2. While deciding the prayer made under Section 143-A, the court must record brief reasons indicating consideration of all relevant factors.

27.3. The broad parameters for exercising the discretion under Section 143-A are as follows:

27.3.1. 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.

27.3.2. A direction to pay interim compensation can be issued, only if the complainant makes out a prima facie case.

27.3.3. If the defence of the accused is found to be prima facie plausible, the court may exercise discretion in refusing to grant interim compensation.

27.3.4. 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 4 A227 No. 1850 of 2025 as the nature of the transaction, the relationship, if any, between the accused and the complainant, etc.

27.3.5. 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."

9. To understand the crux of the matter, it is also relevant to mention the relevant part of the order dated 07.05.2024 passed by the learned Magistrate in the Complaint Case No.1335 of 2021 which is as under: " -------------------- प्ऴावली का अवलोकन िकया। ्ऺस्तुत पिरवाद चैक अना्शण से संबंिधत है, िजसमें अिभयु्व को धारा 138 एन० आई०एक्ट िवचारण हेतु तलब िकया गया है। अिभयु्व ने न्यायालय में उपिस्थत होकर अपनी जमानत करा ली है। अिभयु्व का बयान मुिल्जम अंिकत हो चुका है। संशोिधत एन०आई०एक्ट 2018 में िदये गये ्ऺावधान के अनुसार धारा 143A एन०आई०एक्ट में किथत अंिकत धनरािश का 20% पिरवादी को िदलाये जाने का ्ऺावधान िकया गया है। अिभयु्वा ्षारा अपनी आपि्त में िकये गये समस्त कथन साष्य का िवषय हैं। आपि्त के साथ दािखल सभी ्ऺप्ऴ छाया्ऺित होने के कारण साष्य में ्षा्ि नहीं है। माननीय उच्चतम न्यायालय ्षारा ्ऺितपािदत िविध ्िवस्था जी० जे० राजा बनाम तेजरात सुराना (2019) सु्ऺीम कोटर् में यह अवधािरत िकया गया है िक संशोिधत एन०आई०एक्ट 2018 में िदये गये ्ऺावधान के अनुसार धारा 143A एन०आई०एक्ट का ्ऺभाव भूतल्षी होगा पूवर् ्िािपत नही होगा। ्ऺस्तुत ्ऺकरण वषर् 2019 से संबंिधत है और संशोधन आदेश िदनांक

01.09.2018 से ्ऺभावी है। तदनुसार ्ऺाथर्ना प्ऴ स्वीकार िकये जाने योग्य है। आदेश ्ऺाथर्ना प्ऴ िदनांिकत-04.07.2023 स्वीकार िकया जाता है तथा आपि्त िनस्तािरत की जाती है। अिभयु्व को आदेिशत िकया जाता है िक वह किथत चेक में अंिकत धनरािश का 20% अंतिरम ्ऺितकर अंकन 170420/- रूपये िनयत ितिथ पर पिरवादी को अदा करें। प्ऴावली वास्ते अि्षम आदेश िदनांक- 06.06.2024 को पेश हो।"

10. A perusal of the above impugned order dated 07.05.2024 shows that the learned Magistrate has mentioned, in short, the grounds of application under Section 143-A of N.I. Act as well as the defence taken in the objections filed by the accused, but, without prima facie evaluating the merits of the case and the merits of the defence, the impugned order dated 07.05.2024 has been passed only mentioning that the accused has been summoned under Section 138 N.I. Act, who has been enlarged on bail and the statement of accused is also recorded. The learned Magistrate has awarded 20 percent of the amount 5 A227 No. 1850 of 2025 mentioned in the impugned cheque as interim compensation under Section 143-A of N.I. Act without giving any reason as to on what basis the learned Magistrate has computed the amount, whereas sub-section 2 of Section 143- A of N.I. Act provides that the interim compensation shall not exceed 20 percent of the cheque amount. Thus, the order dated 07.05.2024 appears incorrect as the learned Magistrate has not paid any heed to the provisions of Section 143-A of N.I. Act and parameter laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court and in a cursory manner the learned Magistrate has allowed the application.

11. The order of learned Magistrate was challenged before the Court of Sessions in a criminal revision but the Revisional Court i.e. Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Court No.07, Ghaziabad has also passed the order dated 07.11.2024 in the same way and dismissed the Revision without assigning any reason about prima facie evaluation of the case on merits and the consideration of defence raised by the accused. It was required for the Revisional Court to examine only the legality, correctness, impropriety, irregularity of the impugned order passed by the learned Magistrate but the learned Revisional Court has failed to do so because the requirement of application under Section 143-A of N.I. Act was not considered in the parameters and guidelines laid by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Rakesh Ranjan Shrivastava (supra) and also as provided in Section 143-A of N.I. Act, therefore, the learned Revisional Court has also committed error in passing the order dated 07.11.2024.

12. In this petition the facts in abundance have been mentioned in the petition as well as in the Revision memo filed before the learned Revisional Court but those facts are to be considered in the trial pending before the learned Magistrate, hence no view can be given on those facts.

13. After considering the material available on record and the arguments of both the parties and in view of above, this Court finds that the learned Magistrate has not considered the material and the evidences available on record and without evaluating those facts, evidences and the defence has passed the impugned order dated 07.05.2024 without applying the principles laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Rakesh Ranjan Srivastava (supra) and the provisions contained in Section 143-A of N.I. Act and thus, has committed the manifest error which cannot be allowed to stand. In the same way, the learned Revisional Court has also not considered the 6 A227 No. 1850 of 2025 provisions of Section 143-A of N.I. Act and the principles laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court and passed the impugned order dated 07.11.2024, which is arbitrary and against the law.

14. Accordingly, the petition is allowed. The order dated 07.05.2024 passed by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate/ Additional Civil Judge, (Senior Division), Court No.2, Ghaziabad in Complaint Case No.1335 of 2021 (Anil Kumar Yadav Vs. Renu Tomar) and judgment and order dated 07.11.2024 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Court No.07, District Ghaziabad in Criminal Revision No.348 of 2024 (Renu Tomar Vs. State of U.P. & another) are hereby set aside. The matter is remanded back to the Court of learned Magistrate to decide the application under Section 143-A of N.I. Act afresh, in accordance with law, after affording opportunity of hearing to all affected parties.

15. Further, it has been stated by the learned counsel for respondent no.2 that in a petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. this Court, in the year 2022, has directed the Trial Court to decide the case within stipulated time of three months but the case is still pending.

16. Considering the above facts, the Trial Court is directed to decide the Complaint Case No.1335 of 2021, under Section 138 N.I. Act, Police Station Sihani Gate, District Ghaziabad as early as possible, preferably within three months from the date of a certified copy of this order is produced before it by making all possible endeavour. October 16, 2025 CS/- (Divesh Chandra Samant,J.) CHANDAN SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad