Ravindra Singh vs State Of U.P. And Another
2025 Latest Caselaw 737 ALL

Allahabad High Court

Ravindra Singh vs State Of U.P. And Another on 8 May, 2025

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 


?Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:75083
 
Court No. - 73
 

 
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 9074 of 2025
 

 
Applicant :- Ravindra Singh
 
Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another
 
Counsel for Applicant :- Raj Kumar Sharma
 
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
 

 
Hon'ble Vikas Budhwar,J.
 

1. Heard Shri Raj Kumar Sharma, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Moti Lal, learned AGA for the State.

2. This application under Section 482 Cr.PC. has been filed by the applicant to quash the entire proceedings of in Case No. 314 of 2019 (Udayveer Singh Vs Ravindra Singh and others) under Sections 138 Negotiable Instrument Act at Police Station Gandhi Park, District- Aligarh, pending before the Court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No. 04, District - Aligarh as well as order dated 11.02.2025 passed by the aforesaid Court upon an application moved by the Opposite Party No. 2 under Section 143 A Negotiable Instrument Act.

3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that a complaint stood lodged by the opposite party no. 2 regarding dishonouring of a cheque of an amount of Rs. 6,73,982/- pursuant to which on 07.12.2019, the applicant was summoned under Section 138 of the N.I. Act thereafter an application under Section 143A of the N.I. Act stood preferred by the opposite party no. 2 which came to be decided in favour of the complainant by the Court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No. 04, District - Aligarh on 22.04.2024.

4. Questioning the said order, the applicant preferred the application U/S 482 No. 19265 of 2024 (Ravindra Singh v. State of U.P. and another) in which on 31.07.2024, the following orders have been passed:

"1. Heard Sri Raj Kumar Sharma, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Brijesh Kumar Dwivedi, learned AGA for the State.

2. The instant application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed with the following prayer:

"1. Quash the entire proceeding in Case Number 314 of 2019 (Udayveer Singh Vs Ravindra Singh and others) under Section 138 Negotiable Instrument Act (hereinafter referred to as the 'N.I. Act') at Police Station Gandhi Park, District Aligarh, pending before the Court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No. 04, District - Aligarh,

II. Quash the order dated 22.04.2024 passed by the aforesaid Court upon an application moved by the Opposite Party No. 2 under Section 143 A Negotiable Instrument Act in the aforesaid case,

III. It is further prayed that this Hon'ble Court may graciously be pleased to stay the proceeding of Case Number 314 of 2019 (Udayveer Singh Vs Ravindra Singh and others) under Sections 138 Negotiable Instrument Act at Police Station District Aligarh, pending before Gandhi Park, the Court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No. 04, District - Aligarh."

3. Learned counsel for the applicant at the outset submits that he does not want to press prayer no.1 and 3 at this stage and he is pressing only prayer no.2 with regard to the validity of the order dated 22.04.2024 whereby the applicant was directed to pay 20% of the cheque amount as compensation to the opposite party no. 2. Learned counsel for the applicant has relied upon the judgment of Apex Court in Rakesh Ranjan Shrivastava vs. State of Jharkhand and another), 2024 (4) SCC 419. The relevant portion of the aforesaid judgment reads as under, which is a guiding factor to the Magistrate concerned for passing the orders under Section 143-A of the N.I. Act:

"22. When the court deals with an application under Section 143-A of the NI Act, 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 under sub-section (1) of Section 143-A. The presumption under Section 139 of the NI Act, by itself, is no ground to direct the payment of interim compensation. The reason is that the presumption is rebuttable. The question of applying the presumption will arise at the trial. Only if the complainant makes out a prima facie case, a direction can be issued to pay interim compensation. At this stage, the fact that the accused is in financial distress can also be a consideration.

23. Even if the court concludes that a case is made out for grant of interim compensation, the court will have to apply its mind to the quantum of interim compensation to be granted. Even at this stage, the court will have to consider various factors such as the nature of the transaction, the relationship, if any, between the accused and the complainant and the paying capacity of the accused. If the defence of the accused is found to be prima facie a plausible defence, the court may exercise discretion in refusing to grant interim compensation.

24. We may note that the factors required to be considered, which we have set out above, are not exhaustive. There could be several other factors in the facts of a given case, such as, the pendency of a civil suit, etc. While deciding the prayer made under Section 143-A, the Court must record brief reasons indicating consideration of all the relevant factors.

27. Subject to what is held earlier, the main conclusions can be summarised as follows:

27.1. The exercise of power under sub-section (1) of Section 143-A is discretionary. The provision is directory and not mandatory. The word "may" used in the provision cannot be construed as "shall".

27.2. While deciding the prayer made under Section 143-A, the court must record brief reasons indicating consideration of all relevant factors.

27.3. The broad parameters for exercising the discretion under Section 143-A are as follows:

27.3.1. 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.

27.3.2. A direction to pay interim compensation can be issued, only if the complainant makes out a prima facie case.

27.3.3. If the defence of the accused is found to be prima facie plausible, the court may exercise discretion in refusing to grant interim compensation.

27.3.4. 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."

4. In view of the aforesaid guidelines issued, learned counsel for the applicant submits that the trial court must record the reasons and must deal with different factors as has been described above in the aforesaid judgment before passing the order under Section 143-A of the N.I. Act. He further submits that the aforesaid order since is not in compliance with the aforesaid judgment of the Apex Court, is liable to be set aside by this Court. The order dated 22.04.2024 passed by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No. 04, Aligarh reads as under:

"Case called out. Complainant and accused are present before the court with their Ld. Counsel.

Ld. Counsel for complainant has moved an application u/s 143? NI Act seeking a direction against the accused to pay 20 percent of the cheque amount as compensation.

On the other hand, accused has opposed such application by way of filing their objection. Accused has also presented copy of bills and bank statements of his firm.

Heard the arguments of both the Ld. Counsels for the complainant and the accused and perused the records.

Cause is sufficient. Application filed by the complainant u/s 143A NI Act is hereby allowed. Consequently, accused is hereby directed to pay 20 percent of the cheque amount to the complainant as interim compensation within 60 days from the date of this order.

Put up on 28-05-2024 for cross examination."

5. From perusal of the aforesaid order, it is crystal clear that the aforesaid order passed by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate is not in compliance of the guidelines issued by the Apex Court in the judgment of Rakesh Ranjan Shrivastava (supra).

6. In view thereof, this Court without issuing notice to the opposite party no.2 as the same will further delay the proceedings of the complaint case, set aside the order dated 22.04.2024 with a direction to the trial court to pass a fresh order in accordance with the directions issued by the Apex Court keeping all factors into consideration as directed by the Apex Court.

7. With the aforesaid direction, the instant application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. is disposed of."

5. Post remand, now the Court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No. 04, District - Aligarh in Case No. 314 of 2019 (Udayveer Singh Vs Ravindra Singh and others) has proceeded to pass the order dated 11.02.2025 granting 20% compensation under Section 143A of the Act in favour of the complainant/ opposite party no. 2.

6. Assailing the said order, the applicant has filed the present application.

7. Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that for the second time, the same infirmity has crept in the order impugned, particularly, in view of the fact that earlier when the order dated 22.04.2024 was passed then the same was set aside by the court while remanding the matter back on the ground that the said order not passed as per the mandate in the case of Rakesh Ranjan Srivastava v. State of Jharkand and another; [2024] 3 S.C.R. 438. However, he submits that a perusal of the order impugned herein would also reveal that there has been no consideration over the criteria which have been mandated by the Hon'ble Apex Court, according to which, the proceedings under Section 143A of the N.I. Act is to be decided. He thus submits that the summoning order be set aside and the matter be remitted back to Court below to pass fresh orders.

8. Shri Moti Lal, learned AGA submits that though it is the second round of litigation wherein the order under Section 143A of the Act is being subject matter of challenge but according to him, the order does not consider the ingredients and the para meters according to which the application under Section 143A of the N.I. Act is to be decided. He submits that the summoning order be set aside and the matter be remitted back to Court below to pass fresh orders.

9. Having bestowed the consideration over the facts of the case as well as after analyzing the law laid down in the said case by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Rakesh Ranjan Srivastava (supra) and applying the same in the present facts of the case, it is clear that the order which has been subject matter of challenge and impugned in the present application does not confirm to the criteria as enunciated by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the above noted decision.

10. Though the court below has recited the case of the parties but the considerations are not there with regard to the prima facie case of the complainant as well as the quantum of the compensation while considering the nature of the transaction, relationship of the parties and financial distress of the accused.

11. Since the broad para-meters are missing in the order in question thus this Court in exercise of its inherent powers is set aside the order dated 11.02.2025 passed in Case No. 314 of 2019 (Udayveer Singh Vs Ravindra Singh and others) without issuing the notice to the opposite party no. 2.

12. The matter stands remitted back to pass fresh order strictly in accordance with the mandate of the Hon'ble Apex Court as directed vide order dated 31.07.2024 passed in application U/S 482 No. 19265 of 2024.

13. For facilitating early disposal, the party shall furnish the certified copy of the order before the court below by 23.05.2025 and the court below shall proceed to decide the said proceeding with most expedition.

14. Learned counsel for the applicant in his usual fairness submits that as per the instructions from his client, the applicant shall not take adjournment in any manner whatsoever.

15. Accordingly, the application stands disposed of.

Order Date :- 8.5.2025

A. Prajapati