Ashwani Kumar Agnihotri v. Tarun Kumar Upadhyay) U
Case Details
Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:86456 Court No. - 73 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 18215 of 2025 Applicant :- Tarun Kumar Upadhyay Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Jitendra Pal Singh Jadaun,Seema Singh Jadaun Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Vikas Budhwar,J.
Legal Reasoning
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." 9. Applying the principles of law in the present facts of the case, an irresistible conclusion stands drawn that the court below on mere asking has accorded interim compensation without considering the case of the complainant and the accused on prima-facie basis. Further, there has been no consideration with respect to the relationship of the parties and the financial distress of the accused and nonetheless the consideration, as to what would be the quantum of compensation in case the complainant carves out a case of compensation is to be accorded. 10. Since the aforesaid exercise is virtually lacking in the order impugned, thus, this Court but has no option but to set aside the order dated 06.03.2025 passed by the court below. Resultantly, the order dated 06.03.2025 passed by the Additional Court, Aligarh is set aside. The matter stands remitted back to the court below to pass a fresh order strictly in accordance with law. 11. For facilitation of early disposal, the applicant shall submit the certified copy of this order by 30.05.2025. Learned counsel for the applicant as per instructions from his client has made a statement at bar that the applicant shall not take any adjounment and shall participate in the proceedings. 12. The protection so accorded today shall only be confined to in those contingencies wherein the applicant sticks to the terms and conditions and the timeline provided hereinabove. Order Date :- 21.5.2025 C. MANI (Vikas Budhwar,J.) Digitally signed by :- Digitally signed by :- CHANDRAMANI VERMA CHANDRAMANI VERMA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Arguments
1. Heard Sri J.P. Singh, learned counsel for the applicant as well as Sri S.K. Singh, learned AGA for the State. 2. In view of the order, which is being proposed to be passed, notices are not being issued to O.P. No. 2. 3. This is an application U/s 528 BNSS filed for quashing the order dated 06.03.2025 passed by learned Additional court, Aligarh in complaint case No. 1512 of 2020 (Ashwani Kumar Agnihotri vs. Tarun Kumar Upadhyay) U/s 138 of N.I. Act, P.S. Civil Lines, District Aligarh pending in the court of learned Additional Court, Aligarh. 4. The case of the applicant is that a complaint was lodged in the Month of November, 2020 by the opposite party no.2 against the application U/s 137 of N.I. Act with an allegation that a cheque bearing No. 223351 dated 23.09.2020 of an amount of Rs. 3.20 lac was drawn which on presentation in the bank was dishonoured for insufficient funds on thereafter, on 03.10.2020 a statutory demand notice is stated to have been issued followed by the complaint. On 08.02.2022 the applicant has been summoned U/s 138 of N.I. Act. 5. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that a application U/s 143 (a) of N.I. Act was preferred by the complainant/ opposite party no.2 which came to be allowed on 06.03.2025 while according compensation to the tune of 20 per cent. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the order dated 06.03.2025 according compensation to the opposite party no.2 to the tune of 20 per cent is not as per the mandate of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Rakesh Ranjan Srivastava vs. State of Jharkhand and Another (2024) 3 SCR 438. The submission is that the Hon'ble Apex Court in the said decision has mandated that there are certain exercise which has to be undertaken before passing any order for interim compensation which is consideration on prima-facie basis of the case of the complainant and the accused, the nature of the relationship between the parties, the financial distress as well as the other conditions relatable to the fact that in case prima-facie case is made out for payment of interim compensation then the quantum of the same. The submission is that none of the criteria have been adhered to and on mere asking by a totally non speaking order, the compensation has been accorded. 6. Learned AGA on the other hand submits that though opportunity was accorded to the applicant accused to set forward stand/ objection but the same was not availed. However, he could not dispute the fact that the law in this regard is crystalized that criteria is enunciated by the Hon'ble Apex Curt in the case of Rakesh Ranjan Srivastava (Supra) is to be adhered to. He submits that the order dated 06.03.2025 passed by the court below be set aside and the matter be remitted back for fresh order. 7. I have heard the submissions so made across the bar and perused the documents available on record. 8. The issue as to how and under which parameters, the application U/s 143 (a) of N.I. Act is to be considered is no more re-integra. As in the case of Rakesh Ranjan Srivastava (Supra), the Hon'ble Apex Court opined 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 reasons indicating consideration of all relevant factors. c. The broad parameters for exercising the discretion under Section 143A are as follows: