Application) Aakash Enterprises Thorugh Its Signatory Authority Satyendra Kumar v. State of U.P. and Another
Case Details
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 35467 of 2025 (Leading Application) Aakash Enterprises State of U.P. and Another Versus .....Applicant(s) .....Opposite Party(s) Counsel for Applicant(s) Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : Mahendra Tripathi : G.A. with APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 34111 of 2025 (Connected C1 Application) Aakash Enterprises Thorugh Its Signatory Authority Satyendra Kumar Versus State of U.P. and Another .....Applicant(s) .....Opposite Party(s) Counsel for Applicant(s) Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : Mahendra Tripathi : G.A. with APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 34137 of 2025 (Connected C2 Application) Aakash Enterprises Through Its Signatory Authourity Satyendra Kumar Versus State of U.P. and Another .....Applicant(s) .....Opposite Party(s) Counsel for Applicant(s) Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : Mahendra Tripathi : G.A. Court No. - 75 HON'BLE VIKAS BUDHWAR, J.
Legal Reasoning
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. 6. Learned AGA 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. 3 NA528 No. 35467 of 2025 7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the records carefully. 8. 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 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." 9. Here the grant of interim compensation has been accorded also without 4 NA528 No. 35467 of 2025 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.
Arguments
1. Heard Shri Mahendra Tripathi, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri S.K. Singh, learned AGA for the State. 2 NA528 No. 35467 of 2025 2. In view of the order, which is being proposed to be passed today, notices are not being issued to the opposite party No. 2. 3. The facts of the leading application as well as connected C1 &C2 applications are that three individual complaints 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 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 for awarding interim compensation to the tune of 20% which was objected by the applicant and the same came to be decided by common order dated 03.06.2025 relatable to the Complaint Case Nos. 2692 of 2021, 2696 of 2021 and 2690 of 2021 whereby 20% of the interim compensation being Rs., 1,20,000/- out of the total amount of Rs. 6,00,000/- was awarded. 4. Questioning both the orders, the applicant has filed the present application. 5. 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. 1,20,000/- out of total amount of Rs. 6,00,000/- 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
Decision
10. Accordingly, the present applications stand disposed of. 11. The impugned order dated 03.06.2025 passed by learned Prescribed Officer, Additional Court No. 2, Agra in complaint case no. 2692 of 2021 leading application, impugned order dated 03.06.2025 passed by learned Prescribed Officer, Additional Court No. 2, Agra in complaint case no. 2690 of 2021, connected C1 application and impugned order dated 03.06.2025 passed by learned Prescribed Officer, Additional Court No. 2, Agra in complaint case No. 2696 of 2021, connected C2 application are set aside. 12. The matter is remitted to back to the trial court to pass fresh order with most expedition. 13. In order to facilitate expeditious disposal of the matter, the applicant is to furnish the certified copy of the order by 09.10..2025. 14. 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.) Digitally signed by :- Digitally signed by :- ASHUTOSH KUMAR PRAJAPATI ASHUTOSH KUMAR PRAJAPATI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad High Court of Judicature at Allahabad