Amit Nigam vs State Of U.P. And Another
2025 Latest Caselaw 2672 ALL

Allahabad High Court

Amit Nigam vs State Of U.P. And Another on 29 July, 2025

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 


?Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:125586
 
Court No. - 75
 

 
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 26965 of 2025
 

 
Applicant :- Amit Nigam
 
Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another
 
Counsel for Applicant :- Devesh Kumar Shukla,Dharmesh Kumar Shukla
 
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
 

 
Hon'ble Vikas Budhwar,J.
 

1. On oral request of the learned counsel for the applicant he is permitted to make necessary corrections in the prayer clause.

2. Heard Sri Abhishek Shukla, holding brief of Sri Devesh Kumar Shukla learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Sudhir Kumar Chandraul learned AGA for the State.

3. In view of the order which is being proposed to be passed notices are not being issued to the opposite party no.2.

4. This is an application filed under Section 528 of the B.N.S.S. for quashing impugned order dated 11.06.2025 passed by Judicial Magistrate /Additional Civil Judge (J.D.), Court No. 2 Aligarh under section 138 Negotiable Instrument Act in Complaint Case No.565 of 2020 (M/s Shakti Restaurant Group versus Amit Nigam and others) Police station- Qwarsi Gate, Aligarh.

5. Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that a complaint under Section 138 of the N.I. Act came to be preferred by the opposite party no.2 against the applicant on 15.2.2020 with an allegation that with respect to discharge of the liability the applicant herein had drawn a cheque bearing no.552916 dated 29.9.2019 which came to be dishonoured followed by a statutory demand notice and the complaint, an application came to be preferred by the opposite party no.2 under Section 143A of the N.I. Act for according interim compensation to the tune of Rs.4 lakh out of the total amount of Rs.20 lakhs on 28.8.2024 which was objected by the applicant on 14.9.2024 and the said application came to be allowed by the court of Judicial Magistrate/Additional Civil Judge (J.D.), Court No.2, Aligarh on 11.6.2025 according interim compensation to the tune of 20% out of the total Rs.20 lakhs.

6. Questioning the said order present application has been preferred.

7. Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that the order dated 11.6.2025 passed by the court below cannot be sustained as per the mandate of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Rakesh Ranjan Srivastava vs. State of Jharkhand 2024 INSC 205.

8. Submission is that the various factors which were to be considered before according interim compensation has not been considered being the prima facie evaluation of the merits of the case set out by the complainant and the merit of the defence pleaded out by the accused the financial distress of the accused and the aspect regarding the payment of interim compensation on the premise that prima facie case is made out then the quantum while taking into consideration several factors including to relationship of the parties nature of the transaction etc. Further submission is that the order dated 11.6.2025 lacks the necessary exercise.

9. Learned AGA on the other hand submits that once the cheque stood drawn and it was dishonoured then the presumption under Section 139 of the N.I. Act would be there however according to him the mandate in Rakesh Ranjan Srivastava (supra) has not been considered.

10. I have heard the submissions so made across the bar and peruse the record carefully. The order dated 11.6.2025 accorded interim compensation is quoted herein under:-

???????? ??????? ?????????? / ??? ????? ?? (??????), ????? ??????-02, ???????

??? ?????? 565/2020

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

11.06.2025

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

??????? ?? ?? ?? ????????????? ???????? ???? 143? ??.??.???? ?? ??? ?? ???? ??? ?? ?? ???? ??? ??? ?????? 552916 ??????? 20.09.2019 ??? 20,00,000/ ????? ?? ???? ???????? ???? ??? ??? ???? ??? ??? ?????????? ?? ???? ??????? ????? ?? ???? ?? ?????? ??????? ?? ?????????? ?????? ??????? ?????? ?? ?????? ???? ???? ??? ??? ??? ?????????? ?? ??????? ?? 20 ??????? ?????? ?????? ??? ?? ???? ????? ???? ?? ???? ?????

?????????? ?? ?? ?? ????? ?????? ????? ?? ??? ??? ?? ?? ???? ??? ??? ??????? ??? ?? ???? ?????????? ?? ??? ????? ??????? ???? ??? ???? ??? ?????????? ?? ??? ??? ???? ??? ??, ????? ??????? ?????? ???????? ???? ??? ??? ??? ?????? ?? ??????? ?? ????? ?? ??????? ??? ?? ???? ?????????? ?? ????? / ??????? ?? ???? ???? ???? 143? ??.??. ???? ?? ?????? ??????? ???? ??? ??????? ??? ??? ??????? ???????????? ??? ??????????? ?????? ???? ???? ????? ???

???????? ?? ?????? ?? ????? ?? ?? ??????? ?????? ???????? ??? ????????????? ?????? ??? 20,00,00??/ ????? ??? ?? ?????? ? ???? ???? ?? ???? ?? ???????? ???? ??? ??? ????????? ?????? ???? ??? ??????? ?? ???? ??????? ???? ??? ?? ?????? ???? ?????? ??????? ?? ??? ?????? ???? ???? ??? ??? ?????? ???? ???????? ?????? ??????? ?? ???? ????? ?? ????. ? ???? 2024 (4) ??.??.??.250 ???????? ??? ?? ????? ?????? ???? ??? ?? ?? ??????? ?? ?????? ??????????? ?????? ???? ???? ????????? ??? ??? ?????? ??? ????? ?? ?????, ???????????? ? ???? ???????? ?? ?????? ??? ??????? ?? ???? ??? ??????? ??? ???? ?????? ?? 20 ??????? ?????? ??????????? ?? ??? ??? ?????? ???? ???? ????????? ??? ??????? ??????? ?? ????????????? ??????? ???? ???? ??? ?????????/?????????? ?? ?????? ???? ???? ?? ?? ?? ??????? ?????? ??????????? ?? ??? ??? ??? ?????? ?? 20 ??????? ?? ???? ????????? ?????

???????? ????????? ????????? ???? ?????? 11:07:2025 ?? ??? ???

??????? ??????????/??? ????? ?? (??????)

????? ??????-02, ???????

11. The Hon'ble Apex Court in Rakesh Ranjan Srivastava (supra) had the occasion to consider the modality and criteria which were to be adhered and it was observed in para 19:-

"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."

12. The Court finds that neither the prima facie case of the complainant nor of the accused, the financial distress the quantum of compensation has been considered that this Court has no option but to set aside the order.

13. Accordingly, the order dated 11.6.2025 passed by Judicial Magistrate /Additional Civil Judge (J.D.), Court No. 2 Aligarh in Complaint Case No. 565 of 2020 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 6.08.2025, 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 shall not take any unnecessary adjournment.

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

Order Date :- 29.7.2025

piyush