Allahabad High Court

Surjeet Singh Bhadauria vs State Of U.P. And Another on 3 July, 2025





HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 


Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:103342
 
Court No. - 75
 

 
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 21161 of 2025
 

 
Applicant :- Surjeet Singh Bhadauria
 
Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another
 
Counsel for Applicant :- Prateek Dwivedi
 
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
 

 
Hon'ble Vikas Budhwar,J.

1. Heard Sri Prateek Dwivedi, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Moti Lal, learned A.G.A. for the State

2. This is an application under Section 528 of BNSS preferred by the applicant for quashing the order dated 10.03.2025 passed by Civil Judge (JD)/Judicial Magistrate, Jalaun, District Jalaun in Complaint Case No. 666 of 2022 (Lokendra Singh Tomar Vs. Surjeet Singh Bhadauria) u/s 143A N.I. Act pending in the court of Civil Judge (JD)/Judicial Magistrate, Jalaun, District Jalaun.

3. Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that a complaint was lodged by O.P. No.2 on 11.10.2022 under Sections 138 of the N.I. Act with an allegation that with respect to discharge of liability, a cheque bearing number "034307" dated 09.06.2022 was drawn by the applicant for an amount of Rs.4,00,000/-, which on presentation in the bank on 24.06.2022 was dishonoured on account of insufficient fund on 27.06.2022, a statutory demand notice was issued on 13.09.2022 followed by the complaint dated 11.10.2022 and thereafter the applicant was summoned on 20.02.2024 under Section 138 of the N.I. Act. Thereafter an application came to be preferred under Section 143-A of the N.I. Act on 19.09.2024 by O.P. No.2 for grant of interim compensation to the tune of 20% which came to be opposed on 21.10.2024. However, the court below by virtue of the order dated 10.03.2025 proceeded to allow the application under Section 143-A of the N.I. Act while according interim compensation to the tune of 10% of the total amount of Rs.4,00,000/-.

4. Questioning the said order, the applicant has filed the present application.

5. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that though Section 143-A of the N.I. Act provides for grant of interim compensation, but there are certain factors which have to be taken into consideration while considering as to whether the complainant/holder of the cheque is entitled for interim compensation or not. He seeks to rely upon the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Rakesh Ranjan Srivastava vs. State of Jharkhand 2024 INSC 205. According to him, certain parameters have been laid down, according to which the court below while considering the case of interim compensation under Section 143-A of the N.I. Act has to prima facie evaluate the merits of the case made out by the complainant and merits of the defence pleaded by the accused in reply to the application, financial distress of the accused, and, in case, a decision is taken for grant of interim compensation, then the question of quantum is also to be seen and the Court has also to consider several factors while according interim compensation such as nature of the transaction, relationship if any, between the accused and the complainant. However, the same has not been considered.

6. Learned A.G.A. on the other hand submits that though the statute provides for 20% of the compensation but the court below has accorded only 10%, however, he could not dispute the factum that consideration in the light of the judgment in the light of Rakesh Ranjan Srivastava (supra) ought to have been made.

7. I have heard the submissions so made across the Bar and perused the records carefully.

8. The order dated 10.03.2025 subject matter of challenge in the present proceeding is being quoted hereinunder: -

"पत्रावली पेश हुई। पुकार पर परिवादी मय विद्वान अधिवक्ता उपस्थित है। प्रार्थना पत्र पर सुना तथा पत्रावली का अवलोकन किया।

प्रार्थी/परिवादी के विद्वान अधिवक्ता द्वारा प्रार्थना पत्र अंतर्गत धारा 143 ए एन.आई. एक्ट दिनांकित 19.09.2024 पर बल देते हुये कथन किया गया है कि प्रार्थी उक्त परिवाद में परिवादी है। अभियुक्त उपरोक्त परिवाद में जमानत पर है। उपरोक्त पत्रावली में बयान मुल्जिम अंकित हो चुके हैं। परिवादी को अपनी आवश्यकताओं के लिये रूपयों की जरूरत है। ऐसी स्थिति में अभियुक्त से चैक की संपूर्ण धनराशि मुव 4,00,000/-रू० का 20% अंतरिम प्रतिकर के रूप में दिया जावे। एन.आई. एक्ट की धारा 143A में प्रावधान है। अभियुक्त के ऊपर बयान मुल्जिम दर्ज होने पर परिवादी द्वारा दी गई रकम का 20% अंतरिम क्षतिपूर्ति के रूप में परिवादी को दिलाया जावे। न्यायालय द्वारा दिनांक 20.03.2024 को अभियुक्त के बयान मुल्जिम अंकित किये गये। अतः उक्त धनराशि परिवादी को दिलाये जाने की याचना की गयी है।

प्रार्थना पत्र पर अभियुक्त के अधिवक्ता द्वारा आपत्ति प्रस्तुत कर कथन किया गया है कि परिवादी का प्रार्थना खिलाफ कानून व खिलाफ वाक्यात है। अभियुक्त पर परिवादी का कोई भी लेन-देन शेष नहीं है। परिवादी ने अभियुक्त की चैक गलत तरीके से लेकर कूटरचित हस्ताक्षर करके प्रस्तुत की है, जोकि विधि के विपरीत है। अतः उक्त आधारों पर परिवादी के प्रार्थना पत्र को खारिज किये जाने की याचना की गई है।

धारा 143 ए एन.आई. एक्ट यह प्रावधानित करती है कि Notwithstanding anything contained in the code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), the court trying an offence under section 138 may order the drawer of the cheque to Interim Compensation in a summary trial or a summons case, where he pleads not guilty to the (b) in any other case, upon framing of charge.

अतः उपरोक्त तथ्य एवं परिस्थितियों में प्रार्थी/परिवादी द्वारा धारा 143 ए.एन.आई. एक्ट के तहत प्रस्तुत प्रार्थना पत्र स्वीकार किये जाने योग्य है। अंतरिम प्रतिकर के रूप में उसे अभियुक्त से परिवाद में वर्णित समस्त धनराशि का 20 प्रतिशत धनराशि दिलाया जाना न्यायोचित होगा।

आदेश

प्रार्थी/परिवादी लोकेन्द्र सिंह की ओर से धारा 143 ए.एन.आई. एक्ट के तहत प्रस्तुत प्रार्थना पत्र स्वीकार किया जाता है।

अभियुक्त सुरजीत सिंह को आदेशित किया जाता है कि वह परिवादी को परिवाद में वर्णित चैक की समस्त धनराशि का 10% धनराशि अंदर 30 दिवस अदा करें।

पत्रावली वास्ते परिवादी साक्ष्य, दिनांक 11.04.2025 को पेश हो।"

9. A perusal of the order dated 10.03.2025 passed by the court below allowing the application under Section 143-A of the N.I. Act goes to show that none of the criteria so enumerated by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Rakesh Ranjan Srivastava (supra) has been adhered to. Neither the prima facie case of the complainant or the accused, nor the financial distress and the quantum and other facets have been considered.

10. Looking into the over all facts situation and the nature of the order so proposed to be passed, the Court is though not issuing notice to O.P. No.2, but respectfully following the judgement of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Rakesh Ranjan Srivastava (supra), the order dated 10.03.2025 passed in Complaint Case No. 666 of 2022, Lokendra Singh Tomar vs. Sujeet Singh Bhadauria by Civil Judge (Jr. Division)/Judicial Magistrate, Jalaun, District Jalaun is set aside. The matter stands remitted back to the court below to pass fresh order strictly in accordance with law. For facilitation and speedy disposal, certified copy of the order is to be produced by the applicant by 18.07.2025.

11. Needless to point out that the Court has not adjudicate the matter on merits.

12. Accordingly, the application is disposed of.

Order Date :- 3.7.2025

N.S.Rathour

(Vikas Budhwar, J)