In a sharp reminder that litigation cannot be endlessly recycled, the Rajasthan High Court stepped in to address what it termed a procedural overreach by a complainant seeking interim compensation in a cheque bounce case. The petitioner had already lost before both the Magistrate and the Sessions Court but returned to the High Court with a fresh plea challenging the same order under Section 143A of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The Court was called upon to examine whether a litigant can repackage a failed revision as a new petition and attempt a second round of scrutiny.
The controversy began when the complainant, prosecuting a case under the Negotiable Instruments Act before the Metropolitan Magistrate, Jodhpur, sought 20% of the cheque amount as interim compensation under Section 143A. The Magistrate, after considering the facts and rival submissions, declined the request in February 2023. Undeterred, the complainant moved the Sessions Court in revision, but the revisional court affirmed the Magistrate’s decision in November 2023. The matter then resurfaced before the High Court, though styled under a different procedural label. Counsel effectively sought reconsideration of the same issue, arguing that the lower courts had erred in refusing interim relief.
The High Court made it clear that courts are concerned with substance, not form. It noted that merely changing the “procedural attire” of a petition cannot disguise its true character. Citing the statutory bar under Section 397(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the Court observed that entertaining the plea would amount to permitting a second revision, something expressly prohibited by law.
Emphasizing that inherent jurisdiction cannot be used to bypass statutory limits, the Court stated that such extraordinary powers are reserved for rare cases where “palpable injustice stares at the face of the record.” Finding no perversity or illegality in the concurrent findings of the courts below, and reiterating that Section 143A grants discretion, not an automatic right to interim compensation, the Court dismissed the petition.
Case Title: Jai Kishan S/o Sh. Prahlad Ram, Vs. State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp And Ors,
Case No.: S.B. Criminal Misc(Pet.) No. 2676/2024,
Coram: HON'BLE. JUSTICE FARJAND ALI
Advocate for the Petitioner: Adv. Radha Bishnoi
Advocate for the Respondent: AGA.Surendra Bishnoi, Adv. Sukesh Bhati
Read Judgment @Latestlaws.com
Picture Source :
