Sanjay Gupta v. Amit Kumar), under Section
Case Details
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 32347 of 2025 Amit Kumar State of U.P. and Another Versus .....Applicant(s) .....Opposite Party(s) Counsel for Applicant(s) Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : Dhirendra Kumar Srivastava : G.A. Court No. - 75 HON'BLE VIKAS BUDHWAR, J.
Legal Reasoning
the NI Act that is 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 reply to the application, the financial distress of the accused and a direction to pay interim compensation can only be issued if the complainant makes a prima facie, and if the defence of the accused is found to be prima facie plausible the Court exercise discretion in refusing to grant compensation and if the Court concludes that the case is made out from interim compensation, it would have to apply its mind to the quantum of interim compensation to be granted while considering the nature of the transaction, the relationship, if any, between the accused and the complainant itself. Submission is that none of the said criteria had been adhered to, thus, the order dated 12.06.2025 according interim compensation be set aside. 7. Learned AGA, on the other hand, submits that the order passed is not in conformity with the judgment in the case of Rakesh Ranjan Srivastava (supra) as the parameter so enunciated and noted above and not be discussed, he submits that the order be set aside and matter be remitted back to the court below to pass a fresh order. 8. I have heard the submissions so made across the bar and perused the 3 NA528 No. 32347 of 2025 record. 9. A perusal of the said order would go to show that the parameters so enunciated in the case of Rakesh Ranjan Srivastava (supra) is not being considered that there is no consideration to the financial distress and the quantum of compensation which is to be paid. In Rakesh Ranjan Srivastava (supra), the following was 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 parameter so enumerated in Rakesh Ranjan Srivastava 4 NA528 No. 32347 of 2025 (supra) has not been considered and the exercise is lacking, thus, this Court has no option but to set aside the order dated 12.06.2025. 11. Accordingly, the order dated 12.06.2025 passed by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Chandauli in Complaint Case No. 263 of 2023 Complaint Case No.10469 of 2024 is set aside; matter stands remitted back to the court below to pass fresh order in light of the judgment in Rakesh Ranjan Srivastava (supra); for facilitation in speedy disposal, the certified copy of the order be furnished before the court below by 17.09.2025, the court below shall take endeavour to pass orders strictly in accordance with law without granting unnecessary adjournment particularly in view of the fact that learned counsel for the applicant, as per the instructions of his client, has disclosed shall not take any unnecessary adjournment.
Arguments
1. Heard Sri Dhirendra Kumar Srivastava, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Vikas Sharma, learned State Law Officer for the State. 2. In view of the order which is being proposed to be passed, notice is not being issued to the opposite party no. 2. 3. This application u/s 528 of BNSS has been preferred to quash the impugned order dated 12.06.2025 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Chandauli over Application under Section-143A of Negotiable Instruments Act filed on behalf of the opposite party no.2 as well as entire criminal proceedings of Complaint Case No.10469 of 2024 (Sanjay Gupta vs. Amit Kumar), under Section-138 impugned summoning order dated 01.10.2024 and of Negotiable Instruments Act, Police Station-Mughalsarai, District-Chandauli, pending before the Court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Chandauli. 4. The case of the applicant is that a complaint was lodged by the opposite party no. 2 on 05.06.2024 against the applicant under Section 138 of the NI Act with an allegation that with respect to discharge of a liability, the applicant had drawn cheque bearing No. 0763438 dated 06.05.2024 and another cheque bearing no. 763497 dated 06.05.2024 of Rs. 3,00,000/- each which on presentation in the bank on came to be dishonored on 06.05.2024 a statutory demand notice came to be issued on 08.05.2024 followed by a complaint thereafter, applicant came to be summoned on 01.10.2024 under Section 138 of the NI Act. An application came to be 2 NA528 No. 32347 of 2025 preferred under Section 143A of the NI Act for awarding interim compensation to the tune of Rs. 1,20,000/- which was objected by the applicant which came to be allowed on 12.06.2025 while awarding interim compensation to the tune of 20%. 5. Questioning the order passed under Section 143A of the NI Act granting interim compensation to the tune of Rs. 20%, the applicant has filed the present application. 6. Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that the order dated 12.06.2025 according 20% interim compensation cannot be sustained for a simple reason that the same has not been passed in accordance with the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Rakesh Ranjan Srivastava v. State of Jharkand and another: (2024) 3 S.C.R. 438. Submission is that there are certain criteria which ought to have been considered while according interim compensation under Section 143A of
Decision
12. With the above observation, the application stands disposed of. September 4, 2025 Rajesh (Vikas Budhwar,J.) Digitally signed by :- Digitally signed by :- RAJESH KUMAR RAJESH KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad High Court of Judicature at Allahabad