Vishal Singh vs State Of U.P. And Another
2025 Latest Caselaw 1961 ALL

Allahabad High Court

Vishal Singh vs State Of U.P. And Another on 16 July, 2025

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 


?Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:114630
 
Court No. - 75
 

 
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 20440 of 2025
 

 
Applicant :- Vishal Singh
 
Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another
 
Counsel for Applicant :- Abhishek Kumar Pandey,Yash Pratap Singh
 
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
 

 
Hon'ble Vikas Budhwar,J.
 

1. Heard Sri Yash Pratap Singh, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Moti Lal, learned A.G.A.

2. This is an application under Section 528 of BNSS preferred by the applicant for quashing the impugned order dated 07.01.2022 passed by the learned ACJM, Court No. 15, District Deoria in Case No. 6142 of 2021 [Savita Singh Vs. Vishal Singh] whereby the applicant has been summoned to face trial under Section 138 of the N.I. Act, Police Station Saleempur, District Deoria and impugned Order dated 31.08.2024 passed by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No. 15, District Deoria whereby the learned court has directed to deposited the 20% of the amount of Rs. 3,50,000/- (Three Lacs Fifty Thousand Only) within a period of 60 days from the date of order i.e. 31.08.2024, under the provisions of Section 143A of the N.I. Act is illegal and arbitrary manner.

3. The case of the applicant is that a complaint stood lodged by O.P. No.2 under Section 138 of the N.I. Act with an allegation that with respect to discharge of a liability, the applicant herein had drawn a cheque bearing number "005005" dated 03.04.2021 of an amount of Rs.3,50,000/- which on presentation in the bank stood dishonoured on 06.04.2021 and on the assurance of the O.P. No.2 again the cheque was presented in the bank on 13.04.2021, got dishonoured and lastly on 19.04.2021. Thereafter, on 23.04.2021, the statutory demand notice came to be issued followed by the complaint under Section 138 of the N.I. Act on 28.06.2021 and the applicant came to be summoned under Section 138 of N.I. Act on 07.01.2022. Thereafter an application came to be preferred by the O.P. No.2 for grant of interim compensation to the tune of 20% as per the provisions contained under Section 143A of N.I. Act. The applicant herein objected the said application and the said application came to be allowed on 31.08.2024 by the Court of Addl. Civil Judge/ A.C.J.M., Court No.15, Deoria.

4. Questioning the summoning order as well as the order according interim compensation to the tune of 20% under Section 143A of the N.I. Act, the present application has been preferred.

5. Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that he has confined its relief to the order dated 31.08.2024 passed by the court below according compensation to the tune of 20%. Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that the order dated 31.08.2024 according interim compensation to the tune of 20% under Section 143-A of N.I. Act to the O.P. No.2 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 31.08.2024 according interim compensation be set aside.

6. 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.

7. I have heard the submissions so made across the bar and perused the record.

8. A perusal of the order dated 31.08.2024 would go to show that the parameters so enunciated in the case of Rakesh Ranjan Srivastava (supra) are 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."

9. 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 31.08.2024.

10. Accordingly, the order dated 31.08.2024 passed passed by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No. 15, District Deoria 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 31.07.2025. 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.

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

Order Date :- 16.7.2025

N.S.Rathour

(Vikas Budhwar, J)