Krishna Pal vs State Of U.P. And Another
2025 Latest Caselaw 1751 ALL

Allahabad High Court

Krishna Pal vs State Of U.P. And Another on 10 July, 2025

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 


?Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:109573
 
Court No. - 75
 

 
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 24075 of 2025
 

 
Applicant :- Krishna Pal
 
Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another
 
Counsel for Applicant :- Himanshu Ranjan Shukla,Ramesh Kumar Shukla
 
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
 

 
Hon'ble Vikas Budhwar,J.
 

1. Heard Sri Vivek Kumar Shukla (AoR A/V 0597/2012) holding brief of Sri R.K. Shukla, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Pankaj Kumar Rai, 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 order dated 19.09.2024 passed by the Civil Judge (Senior Division)/Fast Track Court/ Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Gautam, Buddh Nagar in Complaint case No.9058 of 2023 under section 138 N.I.Act, Police Station Sector 63 District Gautam Buddh Nagar and the further proceeding of Complaint case No.9058 of 2023, under Section 138 N.I. Act Police Station Sector 63 District Gautam Buddh Nagar pending before the pending before the Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division), Gautam, Buddh Nagar.

4. Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that a complaint was lodged by the opposite party no. 2 under Section 138 of the NI Act on 30.05.2023 with an allegation that with respect to discharge of a liability, the applicant herein had drawn cheque bearing number "105484" of an amount of Rs.4,24,000/-, another cheque bearing number "845482" of an amount of Rs.7,16,000/- dated 20.07.2016. As per the allegations in the complaint, the said cheques when presented in the bank stood dishonoured. Thereafter another cheque bearing number "456654" of an amount of Rs.20,50,000/- came to be drawn which on presentation in the bank on 25.01.2023 was dishonoured on 24.02.2023. Thereafter the said cheque was again presented, but the same stood dishonoured followed by statutory demand notice dated 11.05.2023 and the complaint on 30.05.2023. The applicant came to be summoned under Section 138 of the N.I. Act by the court below and thereafter an application came to be preferred under Section 143A of the N.I. Act on 06.05.2024 by the O.P. No.2 for grant of interim compensation. The applicant-accused objected to the said application and the same came to be allowed on 19.09.2024 while directing the applicant to deposit 5% of the amount being Rs.1,02,500/-.

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

6. Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that the order dated 19.09.2024 passed in Complaint Case No.9058 of 2023 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 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 19.09.2024 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 record.

9. The order dated 19.09.2024 passed by Civil Judge (Sr. Div.)/ Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Gautam Budh Nagar according interim compensation reads as under.-

"??????-19.09.2024

?????? ???? ??? ???? ??????? ??????? ?????? ???????? ????????? ???? ???????? 06.05.2024 ???? ??? ??????? ????????? ???? ?? ??????? ? ???????? ?? ???????? ?? ??? ?? ????? ???? ?? ???? ?? ???? ???

??????? ????????? ???? ??????? ?????? ???????? ???? 143A ????????? ??????? ?? ??? ?? ??? ?? ??? ???? ?? ?? ??????? ?? ??? ??? ???? ??? ?????? ??? ??? ?? ???????? ?? ????????????? ???????? ?? ?????? ?? ???????? ?? ?? ??? ??????? ?? ?? ???????? ?????? ??? ???? ??? ?? ?? ???? ?????? ??? ???? ?? ????? ??? ??? ??? ?? ?? ???? ?????? ??? ????? ??? ??? ??????? ?????? ???? ?? ?? ?? ?????? ??????? ?? ?????? ?? ?? ?? ??? ???? ?? ??? ??? ?????? ??? ???? 143A ????????? ??????? ?? ??? ?????? ?????? ?? 20 ??????? ?????? ??????? ?? ??? ??? ?????? ???? ?? ????????? ?? ???

??????? ????????? ???? ?? ??????? ???????? ?? ?? ?? ???? ??????? ???????? ?????? ????? ?????? ?? ???

???? ?????? ????? ???????? ?? ?????? ???? ???? ???????? ??? ???? ??????? ????? ???? ?? ???? ?? ?????? ???????? ?????? ?? ??? ???? ?? ?? ????? ?? ???? ????????? ? ?????? ???? ?? ?? ?????? ?????? ???? ???? ??? ??? ?????? ???? ?? ?????? ??????? ??????? ?? ????????? ?? ?? ????? ?????? ???? ?? ??? ???? ??????? ?? ??????? ?? ???? ??? 20 ??? ????? ???? ?? ?????? ???? ??? ??????? ?? ??????? ?? ???? ????? ???? ????? ??????? ???-??? ??? 2010 ?? ?????? ???? ??? ?? ????? ?? ????? ???? ?? ?? ??????? ?????? ?? ?????? ?? ???? ??????? ?? ???? ??? ??? ???? ?? ?? ??? ?? ????? ????????? ???? ?? ?????? ?? ?? ?? ?? ???? ??????? ??? ???? ??? ?????? ?????? ???????? ?? ???? ???????? G,J, Raja Vs Tesraj Surana (2019) (19 SCC 469) ?? ????? ??? ???????? ???? ??????????? ?????? ?? ????????? ?? ???????? ???? ??? ??? ?????? ?? 20 ??????? ?? ?? ?????? ?? ????? ??? ????? ?????? ??????? ?? ?????? ???? ?????? ?? ???? ??? ?? ?? ??????? ?? ?????? ?? ???????? ?? ?????? ??????? ?? ???????? ???? ?? ??????? ?? ?? ????? ???? ???? ?????? ???? ???????? ?? ?? ?????????? ???? ?? ?? 20 ??????? ??????? ?????? ???? ???????? ???? ??? ??? ????? ?????? ?? ???????? ???? ??? ??????? ???????? ???? ?? ??? ??? ?????? ?????? ?? 5 ??????? ??????? ???????? ?? ???? ?? ???? ????? ???? ?? ???? ???????? ???

????

?????????-???? ???????? 06.05.2024 ?? ????? ??? ?? ??????? ???? ???? ??? ??????? ???????? ?? ?????? ???? ???? ?? ?? ???? ??? ?????? ?????? ?? 5 ??????? ???? ??? 1,02,500/- (?? ??? ?? ???? ???? ?? ?????) ??? ?? ???? ?? ???? ?? 60 ??? ?? ???? ??????? ???????? ?? ???? ?????? ??????? ??? ???? ????????? ????? ?????? ?? ?????? ??????? ?? ??? ?? ?????????? ????? ???? ????????? ??? ?? ??? ??????? ?? ??????? ?????? ??? ???????? ???? ???? ?? ?? ??????? ??????? ?????? ??????? ?? ?????? 6 ??????? ?????? ????? ?? ????? ?? ??????? ?? ???? ?????? ???? ????????? ?????? ?????? ?????? ??????? ??????? ???? ?????? 13.11.2024 ?? ??? ???"

10. 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."

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 19.09.2024.

12. Accordingly, the order dated 19.09.2024 passed by the Civil Judge (Senior Division)/Fast Track Court/ Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Gautam, Buddh Nagar in Complaint case No.9058 of 2023 under section 138 N.I.Act, Police Station Sector 63 District Gautam Buddh Nagar 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 21.07.2025. 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 that he shall not seek any unnecessary adjournment.

13. With the above observation, the application stands disposed of.

Order Date :- 10.7.2025

N.S.Rathour

(Vikas Budhwar, J)