Himachal Pradesh High Court
Sunil Kumar Panta vs Hira Lal on 13 November, 2024
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
Cr. Revision No.463 of 2024
Date of Decision : 13.11.2024
Sunil Kumar Panta
...... Petitioner
Versus
Hira Lal
.......Respondent
Coram:
The Hon'ble Mr. Justice Bipin Chander Negi, Judge
Whether approved for reporting?1
For the petitioner : Mr. I.S. Chandel, Advocate.
For the respondent : None (On 18.09.2024, Mr. K.B. Khajuria, learned
Advocate had appeared on behalf of the
respondent and had sought time to file power of
attorney, but till date, no power of attorney has been
filed on behalf of the respondent).
Bipin Chander Negi, Judge (oral)
The present petition has been filed laying challenge to
impugned order dated 15.02.2022, passed by learned Additional Chief
Judicial Magistrate, Court No.1, Rohru, District Shimla, H.P., in Case (RBT)
No.322-3 of 2021/2020, titled Hira Lal vs. Sunil Kumar Panta.
2. Heard counsel for the petitioner and perused the pleadings.
3. From perusal of the impugned order dated 15.02.2022, it is
evident that learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No.1, Rohru had
ascertained from the counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, as to
Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes
whether, 10% of the cheque amount, as per provisions of Section 143 of the
N.I. Act, had been deposited by the accused. Since, the petitioner had not
deposited the interim compensation to the tune of 10% of the cheque amount,
therefore, warrant of realization had been issued against the petitioner for
recovery of 10% of the cheque amount.
4. The power to grant interim compensation has been provided
under Section 143-A of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The broad
parameters for exercising the discretion under Section 143-A of the N.I. Act
had been culled out by the Apex Court in Rakesh Ranjan Shrivastava vs.
State of Jharkhand and another, 2024 (4) SCC 419. The relevant extract of
the same is being reproduced herein below:-
"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."
5. Admittedly, in the case at hand, no order for grant of interim
compensation in terms of Section 143-A of the N.I. Act has been passed by
the Trial Court after considering the aforesaid parameters.
6. In view of above, present petition is allowed. Impugned order
dated 15.02.2022, passed by learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate,
Court No.1, Rohru, District Shimla, H.P., in Case (RBT) No.322-3 of
2021/2020, titled Hira Lal vs. Sunil Kumar Panta, is quashed and set aside.
7. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall also stand
disposed of.
( Bipin Chander Negi)
November 13, 2024 (KS) Judge
