Allahabad High Court
Mahendra Singh vs State Of U.P. And Another on 16 September, 2025
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:165119
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 26563 of 2025
Mahendra Singh
.....Applicant(s)
Versus
State of U.P. and Another
.....Opposite Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s)
:
Anurag Pathak, Harshit Pathak
Counsel for Opposite Party(s)
:
G.A.
Court No. - 75
HON'BLE VIKAS BUDHWAR, J.
1. Heard Shri Harshit Pathak, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri S.P. Singh, learned State Law Officer for the State as well as Shri Arun Kumar, counsel for the opposite party no. 2.
2. A statement has been made by counsel for the opposite party no. 2 that he does not propose to file any counter affidavit, thus, with the consent of the parties, the application is being decided at the fresh stage.
2. This application under Section 528 BNSS has been filed by the applicant to quash the Impugned Order dated 18/06/2025 passed by Learned Additional District & Session Judge, Court no. 1, Saharanpur, Impugned Order dated 08/04/2024 and impugned cognizance & summoning order dated 20/04/2023 passed by learned Civil Judge (Junior Division)/Judicial Magistrate, Deoband, Saharanpur and the entire proceedings in Complaint Case No. 1068 of 2022 under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act pending before learned Civil Judge (Junior Division)/Judicial Magistrate, Deoband, Saharanpur.
3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that a complaint stood lodged by the opposite party no. 2 on 11.10.2022 regarding dishonouring of a cheque bearing No.655697 of Rs. 6,00,000/- dated 26.08.2022 which came to be dishonoured on 30.08.2022 followed by a statutory demand notice and the applicant was summoned and an application under Section 143-A of the N.I. Act stood preferred by the opposite party no. 2 seeking 20% of the interim compensation being Rs., 1,20,000/- out of the total amount of Rs. 6,00,000/- against which the applicant preferred a criminal revision No. 287 of 2024 which was rejected by the Additional Sessions Judge, Court No. 1, Saharanpur.
4. Questioning both the orders, the applicant has filed the present application.
5. Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that court below in patent error of law apparent from the face of the record in granting interim compensation being 20% Rs. 1,20,000/- out of total amount of Rs. 6,00,000/- as merely on asking the interim compensation has been accorded without considering 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. He submits that there are various criteria which have been adhered to including the discussion on the prima facie case, the case set up by the complainant, the defence of the accused, quantum of compensation, in case, the Court comes to the conclusion that compensation is to be awarded, financial distress of the accused as well as other factors relatable to the nature of transaction, relationship of the parties etc. Submission is that once the said exercise is lacking, thus, the order be set aside and the matter remitted back to pass fresh order.
6. Learned State Law Officer as well as Shri Arun Kumar, counsel for the opposite party no. 2 on the other hand submit that the issues stands crystallized in view of the judgment in the case of Rakesh Ranjan Srivastava (supra) and according to them, the order be set aside and the matter remitted back to pass fresh order.
7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the records carefully.
8. The Court finds that there has been complete non-adherence of the mandate of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Rakesh Ranjan Srivastava (supra), whereby the Hon'ble Apex Court has clearly observed in para-19 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. Here the grant of interim compensation has been accorded also without considering the financial distress of the applicant apart from the other criteria which have been enumerated therein being quantum. Since the order in question is not inadherence to the principal so enunciated by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Rakesh Ranjan Srivastava (supra), thus, this Court is not issuing the notice but setting aside the order dated 18/06/2025 passed by learned Additional District & Session Judge, Court no. 1, Saharanpur, as well as impugned order dated 08/04/2024 passed by learned Civil Judge (Junior Division)/Judicial Magistrate, Deoband, Saharanpur.
10. Accordingly, the present application stands allowed.
11. The orders dated 18/06/2025 passed by learned Additional District & Session Judge, Court no. 1, Saharanpur, as well as impugned order dated 08/04/2024 passed by learned Civil Judge (Junior Division)/Judicial Magistrate, Deoband, Saharanpur are set aside.
12. The matter is remitted to back to the trial court to pass fresh order with most expedition.
13. In order to facilitate expeditious disposal of the matter, the applicant is to furnish the certified copy of the order by 26.09.2025.
14. The court below post remand shall pass a fresh order strictly in accordance with law principle laid down in the case of Rakesh Ranjan Srivastava (supra).
(Vikas Budhwar,J.)
September 16, 2025
A. Prajapati
