High Court · 2025

1. Heard Sri Ram Jatan Yadav, (AOR No. A/R 0770/2012) holding brief of Sri Rakesh Kumar Verma, learned counsel for the applicant as well as Sri Kripa Shanker, learned AGA for the State.

2. In view of the order proposes to be passed, notices are not being issued to the opposite party no.2.

3. This is an application filed U/s 528 BNSS for quashing the order dated 18.03.2025 and summoning order dated 01.04.2022 passed by Judicial Magistrate, court no1 Agra as well as further proceeding of complaint case no. 1089 of 2021 U/s 138 of N.I. Act, P.S. Achhnera, District Agra.

4. Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that a complaint stood preferred by the opposite party no.2 against the applicant with an allegation that a cheque bearing no. 681082 of Rs. 9,80,000/- which came to be drawn by the applicant for discharge of liability on 25.09.2021 which came to be dishonoured on 05.10.2021 followed by a statutory demand notice dated 7.10.2021 and the applicant came to be summoned U/s 138 of N.I. Act on 01.09.2022. Thereafter an application came to be preferred by the opposite party no.2 U/s 143 (A) on 25.10.2024 for according interim compensation to the tune of 20 per cent as per the provisions contained U/s 143A which came to be allowed by the court below on 18.03.2025 according interim compensation to the tune of 10 per cent. Questioning the summoning order as well as the order dated 18.03.2025 according interim compensation of 10 per cent the present application is preferred.

5. Learned counsel for the applicant on instructions received from his client that he has confined his relief to the challenge raised to the order dated 18.03.2025 according 10 per cent interim compensation. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the order dated 18.03.2025 according interim compensation to the tune of 10 per cent is not maintainable as per the mandate of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Rakesh Ranjan Srivastava v. State of Jharkand and another: (2024) 3 S.C.R. 438. The submissions is that there various criteria which are to be adhered to in order to accord interim compensation which is prima-facie evaluation merits of the case of the complainant and the accused, financial distress and in case the circumstances tilt in favour of the complainant then the quantum of compensation as also while considering the relationship of the parties, nature of the transaction etc. He further submits that the said exercise the is lacking.

6. Learned AGA on the other hand submits that once the cheque stood drawn and was dishonoured then the presumption U/s 139 of N.I. Act would be there. However, he could not dispute the fact the order in question is not as per the mandate of the judgment passed in the case of Rakesh Ranjan Srivastava (Supra).

7. I have heard the submissions so made across the bar and perused the record.

8. The order dated 18.03.2025 reads as under: "18.03.2025. पततवलल आददशतरर पदशश हहई। पररवतदल एशव अभभययक कद पर सयनत जत चयकत हह। भवदतन अधधववतत कक पपवर भनयत भतधर सशकदप मम पररवतदल कक ओर सद पतररनतपत अनतररत धतरत 143 ए एन आई एकट इस आशय कत पसतयत भकयत रयत हह भक वह आलप उतपतदक भकसतन हह तरत भवपकल बबक फतइनमस कत कतयर करतत हह पररवतदल सद भवपकल नद कई बतर पहसद उधतर धलए कय ल 10 लतख रपयद उधतर हकनद पर पशचतयत मम भदनतशक 30.06. 21 कक धलधखत मम भदयत भक वह धसतमबर कद परम सपतह मम अपनत पलतट बमचकर पहसद वतपस कर ददरत तरत 20000/ रपयद नरद दद भदयत। बतदमम तरतदत करनद पर मय० 9,80,000/ कक भदयत जक अनतदररत हक रयत। ऐसद मम उक चदक कक धनरतभश कत 20 पभतशत बततर कभतपपभतर भदलतयत जतय। रपयद रत चदक अपनद हसततकर कर भदनतशक 21.09.21 उक पतररनतपत पर अभभययक कक ओरसद आपधत कक रयल हह भक पतररनतपत रलत तथयय कद आधतर पर पसतयत भकयत रयत हह उसनद 2.5 धजसमम सद मय01,70,000 रपयद कद रपयद अशभकत कर चदक कत भयरततन कद दयरपयकर कर धलयत हह पतररनतपत भनरसत भकयत जतय। रपयद मय वयतज वतपस कर भदयद शदष धनरतभश मय०४०,०००/ धलए चदक भदयत रत धसजमम पररवतदल दतरत 9,00,000 लतख रपयद उधतर धलए रद सयनत एव पततवलल कत समयक पररशललन भकयत उभयपक कद मधय चदक भवपकल अभभययक कक भदयत जतनत सवलकक त हह। हतलतशभक अभभययक नद मतत 80,000/ रपयद कत चदक भदयत जतनत बततयत हह जबभक पररवतदल कद अनयसतर मय09,80,000/ कत चदक पदतन भकयत रयत रत उक कद भनधतररण भवचतरण कद उपरतनत उभयपक कक सतकय दक पररशललन कद उपरतनत हल भकयत जत सकतत हह हलतशभक भवचतरण भववरण कतररत हक सकतत हह ऐसल पररससरभत मम मतमलद कद तथयय चदक कक धनरतभश कत 10 पभतशत एव पररससरभतयय कक दभषरत रखतद हहए मय० 9,80,000/ बततर कभतपपभतर पररवतदल कक भदलतयत जतनत नयतयकभचत पतलत हकतत हह पररवतदल कत पतररनतपत. आश भशक रप सद सवलकतर भकयद जतनद यकगय हह पररवतदल कक ओर सद पसतयतश पतररनतपत अनतररत धतरत 143 ए एन०आई० एकट आश भशक रप सद सवलकतर भकयत जततत हह। पररवतदल कक उक चदक कक धनरतभश कत 10 पभतशत अभभययक 60 भदवस कद भलतर अदत करनत सयभनसशचत करमरत। पततवलल वतसतद सतकय अनतररत रतरत 254 द०प०सश० भदनतक 29.04.25 कक पदश हक। पततवलल पदश हहई। पररवतरल अधधवकत हतधजर वतसतद सतकय हदतय 254 20.05.25 कक पदश हक।" सलआर पल सल भदनतशक

9. A perusal of the order dated 18.03.2025 would reveal that the same is not as per the mandate of the judgment passed in the case of Rakesh Ranjan Srivastava (Supra). Neither the prima facie case of the complainant and the accused has been considered nor there any discussion regarding the financial distress and about the quantum also there is no discussion. After bearing in mind the relationship of the parties and the nature of the transaction. In the case of Rakesh Ranjan Srivastava (Supra) the Hon'ble Apex Court has observed 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: 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. Since the aforesaid exercise is completely lacking, thus the order dated 18.03.2025 cannot be sustained. Accordingly the application is allowed with the following terms: a. The order dated 18.03.2025 passed by the court below is hereby quashed. b. The matter stands remitted back to the court below to pass fresh order strictly in accordance with law.

11. For facilitating early disposal, the party shall furnish the certified copy of the order before the court below by 11.08.2025 and the court below shall proceed to decide the said proceeding with most expedition.

12. Needless to point out that the Court has not adjudicated upon the merits of the case. Order Date :- 1.8.2025 C. MANI CHANDRAMANI VERMA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

1. Heard Sri Ram Jatan Yadav, (AOR No. A/R 0770/2012) holding brief of Sri Rakesh Kumar Verma, learned counsel for the applicant as well as Sri Kripa Shanker, learned AGA for the State.

2. In view of the order proposes to be passed, notices are not being issued to the opposite party no.2.

3. This is an application filed U/s 528 BNSS for quashing the order dated 18.03.2025 and summoning order dated 01.04.2022 passed by Judicial Magistrate, court no1 Agra as well as further proceeding of complaint case no. 1089 of 2021 U/s 138 of N.I. Act, P.S. Achhnera, District Agra.

4. Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that a complaint stood preferred by the opposite party no.2 against the applicant with an allegation that a cheque bearing no. 681082 of Rs. 9,80,000/- which came to be drawn by the applicant for discharge of liability on 25.09.2021 which came to be dishonoured on 05.10.2021 followed by a statutory demand notice dated 7.10.2021 and the applicant came to be summoned U/s 138 of N.I. Act on 01.09.2022. Thereafter an application came to be preferred by the opposite party no.2 U/s 143 (A) on 25.10.2024 for according interim compensation to the tune of 20 per cent as per the provisions contained U/s 143A which came to be allowed by the court below on 18.03.2025 according interim compensation to the tune of 10 per cent. Questioning the summoning order as well as the order dated 18.03.2025 according interim compensation of 10 per cent the present application is preferred.

5. Learned counsel for the applicant on instructions received from his client that he has confined his relief to the challenge raised to the order dated 18.03.2025 according 10 per cent interim compensation. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the order dated 18.03.2025 according interim compensation to the tune of 10 per cent is not maintainable as per the mandate of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Rakesh Ranjan Srivastava v. State of Jharkand and another: (2024) 3 S.C.R. 438. The submissions is that there various criteria which are to be adhered to in order to accord interim compensation which is prima-facie evaluation merits of the case of the complainant and the accused, financial distress and in case the circumstances tilt in favour of the complainant then the quantum of compensation as also while considering the relationship of the parties, nature of the transaction etc. He further submits that the said exercise the is lacking.

6. Learned AGA on the other hand submits that once the cheque stood drawn and was dishonoured then the presumption U/s 139 of N.I. Act would be there. However, he could not dispute the fact the order in question is not as per the mandate of the judgment passed in the case of Rakesh Ranjan Srivastava (Supra).

7. I have heard the submissions so made across the bar and perused the record.

8. The order dated 18.03.2025 reads as under: "18.03.2025. पततवलल आददशतरर पदशश हहई। पररवतदल एशव अभभययक कद पर सयनत जत चयकत हह। भवदतन अधधववतत कक पपवर भनयत भतधर सशकदप मम पररवतदल कक ओर सद पतररनतपत अनतररत धतरत 143 ए एन आई एकट इस आशय कत पसतयत भकयत रयत हह भक वह आलप उतपतदक भकसतन हह तरत भवपकल बबक फतइनमस कत कतयर करतत हह पररवतदल सद भवपकल नद कई बतर पहसद उधतर धलए कय ल 10 लतख रपयद उधतर हकनद पर पशचतयत मम भदनतशक 30.06. 21 कक धलधखत मम भदयत भक वह धसतमबर कद परम सपतह मम अपनत पलतट बमचकर पहसद वतपस कर ददरत तरत 20000/ रपयद नरद दद भदयत। बतदमम तरतदत करनद पर मय० 9,80,000/ कक भदयत जक अनतदररत हक रयत। ऐसद मम उक चदक कक धनरतभश कत 20 पभतशत बततर कभतपपभतर भदलतयत जतय। रपयद रत चदक अपनद हसततकर कर भदनतशक 21.09.21 उक पतररनतपत पर अभभययक कक ओरसद आपधत कक रयल हह भक पतररनतपत रलत तथयय कद आधतर पर पसतयत भकयत रयत हह उसनद 2.5 धजसमम सद मय01,70,000 रपयद कद रपयद अशभकत कर चदक कत भयरततन कद दयरपयकर कर धलयत हह पतररनतपत भनरसत भकयत जतय। रपयद मय वयतज वतपस कर भदयद शदष धनरतभश मय०४०,०००/ धलए चदक भदयत रत धसजमम पररवतदल दतरत 9,00,000 लतख रपयद उधतर धलए रद सयनत एव पततवलल कत समयक पररशललन भकयत उभयपक कद मधय चदक भवपकल अभभययक कक भदयत जतनत सवलकक त हह। हतलतशभक अभभययक नद मतत 80,000/ रपयद कत चदक भदयत जतनत बततयत हह जबभक पररवतदल कद अनयसतर मय09,80,000/ कत चदक पदतन भकयत रयत रत उक कद भनधतररण भवचतरण कद उपरतनत उभयपक कक सतकय दक पररशललन कद उपरतनत हल भकयत जत सकतत हह हलतशभक भवचतरण भववरण कतररत हक सकतत हह ऐसल पररससरभत मम मतमलद कद तथयय चदक कक धनरतभश कत 10 पभतशत एव पररससरभतयय कक दभषरत रखतद हहए मय० 9,80,000/ बततर कभतपपभतर पररवतदल कक भदलतयत जतनत नयतयकभचत पतलत हकतत हह पररवतदल कत पतररनतपत. आश भशक रप सद सवलकतर भकयद जतनद यकगय हह पररवतदल कक ओर सद पसतयतश पतररनतपत अनतररत धतरत 143 ए एन०आई० एकट आश भशक रप सद सवलकतर भकयत जततत हह। पररवतदल कक उक चदक कक धनरतभश कत 10 पभतशत अभभययक 60 भदवस कद भलतर अदत करनत सयभनसशचत करमरत। पततवलल वतसतद सतकय अनतररत रतरत 254 द०प०सश० भदनतक 29.04.25 कक पदश हक। पततवलल पदश हहई। पररवतरल अधधवकत हतधजर वतसतद सतकय हदतय 254 20.05.25 कक पदश हक।" सलआर पल सल भदनतशक

9. A perusal of the order dated 18.03.2025 would reveal that the same is not as per the mandate of the judgment passed in the case of Rakesh Ranjan Srivastava (Supra). Neither the prima facie case of the complainant and the accused has been considered nor there any discussion regarding the financial distress and about the quantum also there is no discussion. After bearing in mind the relationship of the parties and the nature of the transaction. In the case of Rakesh Ranjan Srivastava (Supra) the Hon'ble Apex Court has observed 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: 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. Since the aforesaid exercise is completely lacking, thus the order dated 18.03.2025 cannot be sustained. Accordingly the application is allowed with the following terms: a. The order dated 18.03.2025 passed by the court below is hereby quashed. b. The matter stands remitted back to the court below to pass fresh order strictly in accordance with law.

11. For facilitating early disposal, the party shall furnish the certified copy of the order before the court below by 11.08.2025 and the court below shall proceed to decide the said proceeding with most expedition.

12. Needless to point out that the Court has not adjudicated upon the merits of the case. Order Date :- 1.8.2025 C. MANI CHANDRAMANI VERMA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad