Allahabad High Court
Vivek Soni vs State Of U.P. And Another on 19 September, 2025
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:169504
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 34090 of 2025
Vivek Soni
.....Applicant(s)
Versus
State of U.P. and another
.....Opposite Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s)
:
Ajit Kumar, Satya Prakash Singh
Counsel for Opposite Party(s)
:
G.A.
Court No. - 75
HON'BLE VIKAS BUDHWAR, J.
1. Heard Sri S.P. Singh, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Pankaj Kumar Rai, learned State Law Officer for the State.
2. This application u/s 528 of BNSS has been preferred to quash the entire proceedings of Complaint Case No. 38442 of 2024 (Shivendra Verma Vs. Vivek Soni) under section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, Police Station Sikandara, District Basti, pending in the Court of Third Additional Civil Judge (J.D.)/ Judicial Magistrate, Court-16, Basti and the order dated 30-06-2025 passed u/s. 143A the Negotiable Instruments Act, by learned Third Additional Civil Judge (J.D.)/ Judicial Magistrate, Court-16, Basti in Complaint Case No. 38442 of 2024 (Shivendra Verma Vs. Vivek Soni).
3. The case of the applicant is that post lodging of a complaint under Section 138 of the NI Act, the applicant came to be summoned thereafter, an application u/s 143A of the NI Act came to be filed by the opposite party no. 2 which was objected by the applicant on 30.06.2025, the same came to be allowed according 15% interim compensation out of the total amount of Rs. 6,50,000/- being Rs. 97,500/-. Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that though it can be said that prima facie the merits of the case of the applicant, the accused have been taken into consideration but there is nothing on record to show that there has been any consideration upon the financial distress of the accused and also of the quantum.
4. Questioning the order passed under Section 143A of the NI Act granting interim compensation to the tune of Rs. 15%, the applicant has filed the present application.
5. Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that the order dated 30.06.2025 according 15% interim compensation cannot be sustained for a simple reason that the same has not been passed in accordance with the judgment of 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 30.06.2025 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 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."
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 17.08.2023.
10. Accordingly, the order dated 30.06.2025 passed by passed by learned Third Additional Civil Judge (J.D.)/ Judicial Magistrate, Court-16, Basti 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, certified copy of the order be furnished before the court below by 09.10.2025. 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.
11. With the above observation, the application stands disposed of.
(Vikas Budhwar,J.)
September 19, 2025
Rajesh
