Ram Sundar v. Rajesh Kumar) Under Section
Case Details
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 36193 of 2025 Rajesh Kumar State of U.P. and Another Versus .....Applicant(s) .....Opposite Party(s) Counsel for Applicant(s) Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : Amit Kumar Singh : G.A. Court No. - 75 HON'BLE VIKAS BUDHWAR, J.
Legal Reasoning
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 19.04.2025 according interim compensation be set aside. 8. 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. 9. I have heard the submissions so made across the bar and perused the record. 10. A perusal of the said order granting interim compensation 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 3 NA528 No. 36193 of 2025 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. " 11. Since the parameter so enumerated in Rakesh Ranjan Srivastava (supra) has not been considered and the exercise is lacking, thus, this Court has no option but to set aside the order dated 19.04.2025. 12. Accordingly, the order dated 19.04.2025 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate-II Court No.13 Basti in Complaint Case No. 15281 of 2021 (Ram Sundar Vs. Rajesh Kumar) Under Section 138 of Negotiable Instrument Act, Police Station-Dubauliya, District-Basti 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 09.10.2025. The court below shall take endeavour to pass orders strictly in 4 NA528 No. 36193 of 2025 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 that he shall not seek any unnecessary adjournment.
Arguments
1. Heard Sri Amit Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the applicant as well as Sri Vikas Sharma, learned State Law Officer for the State. 2. In view of the order, which is being proposed to be passed today, notices are not being issued to the O.P. no.2. 3. This is an application under Section 528 of BNSS preferred by the applicant for quashing the order dated 19.04.2025 and N.B.W. order dated 03.09.2025 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate-II Court No.13 Basti in Complaint Case No. 15281 of 2021 (Ram Sundar Vs. Rajesh Kumar) Under Section 138 of Negotiable Instrument Act, Police Station-Dubauliya, District-Basti. 4. The case of the applicant is that a complaint stood lodged by O.P. No.2 on 07.06.2021 by the O.P. No.2 under Section 138 of N.I. Act against the applicant with an allegation that the applicant herein had drawn two cheques bearing number "308158" and "308159" dated 23.03.2021 for an amount Rs.2,00,000/- each, which on presentation in the bank on 23.03.2021 came to be dishonoured on 24.03.2021 followed by a statutory demand notice dated 19.04.2021 and a complaint under Section 138 of N.I. Act on 07.06.2021 and thereafter the applicant came to be summoned on 24.04.2023 under Section 138 of the N.I. Act. Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that during the pendency of the said proceedings, an application under Section 143-A of N.I. Act came to be preferred by O.P. No.2 for grant of interim compensation which was objected by the applicant, which came to 2 NA528 No. 36193 of 2025 be allowed on 19.04.2025 according interim compensation to the tune of 20% of the total amount of Rs.4,00,000/- being Rs.80,000/-. 6. Questioning the said order, present application has been preferred. 7. Learned counsel for the applicants has submitted that the order dated 19.04.2025 cannot be sustained, particularly in view of the fact that the same is not as per 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. Submission is that there are certain criteria which ought to have been considered while according interim compensation under Section 143A of the
Decision
13. With the above observation, the application stands disposed of. September 19, 2025 N.S.Rathour (Vikas Budhwar,J.) Digitally signed by :- NIPENDRA SINGH RATHOUR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad