Fayaz Ahmad Tantray vs Union Territory Of J&K &Anr
2025 Latest Caselaw 2011 J&K/2

Jammu & Kashmir High Court - Srinagar Bench

Fayaz Ahmad Tantray vs Union Territory Of J&K &Anr on 11 November, 2025

Author: Sanjay Dhar

Bench: Sanjay Dhar

                                                  13
                                                  Regular

      HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH
                  AT SRINAGAR

                                                CRM (M) No. 339/2024

Fayaz Ahmad Tantray                              ..... Petitioner (s)

                        Through:     Mr. Sheikh Mushtaq, Adv.

                     V/s

Union Territory of J&K &anr                      ..... Respondent(s)

                        Through:    Mr. Hanan Hussain, Adv.
                                    Vice Mr. Azhar ul Amin, Adv.
Coram:
            Hon'ble Mr. Justice Sanjay Dhar, Judge.
                                ORDER

11.11.2025

1. The petitioner has challenged order dated 04.03.2024 passed by the

learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Anantnag whereby interim

compensation in terms of Section 143 A of the N I Act to the extent of

20% of the cheque amount has been awarded in favour of the

complainant

2. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

3. A perusal of the impugned order would reveal that the learned

Magistrate has awarded interim compensation to the extent of 20% of

the cheque amount in favour of the respondent/complainant.

However, it is not discernible from the contents of the order as to on

what basis the learned Magistrate has proceeded to award the Page |2

maximum amount of interim compensation under the provision of

143 A of N I Act.

4. It is settled law that the power to award interim compensation in

terms of Section 143 A of N I Act is discretionary in nature. This

discretion has to be exercised on the basis of valid reasons in the

absence of which the exercise of discretion becomes arbitrary. The

Supreme Court in Rakesh Ranjan Shrivastava Vs. State of Jharkhand

and another reported in (2024) 4 SCC 419 has categorically held that

the direction to pay interim compensation can be issued only if the

complainant makes out a prima facie case. The Supreme Court in the

said case has laid down the parameters for grant of interim

compensation. Para 27 of the Judgment is relevant to the context and

the same is reproduced as under:

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 143A 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 143A, the Court must record brief reasons indicating consideration of all relevant factors.

27.3.The broad parameters for exercising the discretion under Section 143A 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 Page |3

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. 27.3.3If 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. 27.3.5 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. From the above enunciation of law laid down by the Supreme Court,

it is clear that while deciding the quantum of interim compensation, a

Magistrate has to apply his/her mind and he/she has to consider

several factors such as nature of transaction, the relationship if any

between the accused and the complainant etc. In the instant case, bare

perusal of the impugned order would show that the learned trial

Magistrate has not assigned any reason much less a plausible reason

for proceeding to award maximum amount of interim compensation

i.e, 20% of the cheque amount against the petitioner. The learned

Magistrate was expected to justify in order with reasons the quantum

of interim compensation as the same can vary from 1% to 20% of the Page |4

cheque amount. The impugned order in the absence of such reason

becomes unsustainable in law.

6. Accordingly, the petition is allowed and the impugned order including

the proceedings emanating there-from are quashed. The learned

Magistrate shall pass a fresh order on the application of the

respondents under Section 143 A of Cr.PC after taking into

consideration the ratio the laid down by the Supreme Court in Rakesh

Ranjan Shrivastava's case (supra).

7. Disposed of as above.

(Sanjay Dhar) Judge SRINAGAR 11.11.2025 Sarvar