Jharkhand High Court
Vikram Kumar vs The State Of Jharkhand on 9 September, 2024
Author: Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi
Bench: Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
W.P.(Cr.) No. 550 of 2024
Vikram Kumar, aged about 44 years, son of Manjeet
Kumar, resident of 1B/202, Sangeeta Off Yari Road,
Versova, Andheri West, Mumbai, Mumbai Suburban,
P.O. Azad Nagar (Andheri West), P.S.-Versova Police
Station, District Mumbai, Maharashtra-400061,
Proprietor of M/s Running Horse Films, Morya
Landmark-1, 201, Veera Desai Road, P.O.-Azad
Nagar (Andheri West), P.S. Versova, District-Mumbai,
Veera Desai Road, Andheri West, Mumbai-400053.
..... ... Petitioner
Versus
1. The State of Jharkhand.
2. Niloy Kumar Jha, son of Anil Kumar Jha, resident
of Gopal Marketing Complex, P.O. and P.S.-Argora,
District-Ranchi.
..... ... Respondents
--------
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI
------
For the Petitioner : Mr. Gautam Kumar, Advocate.
For the State : Mr. Sachin Kumar, A.C. to S.C.-I.
For the Resp. No. 2 : Mr. Ajay Kumar Sah, Advocate.
------
06/ 09.09.2024 Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, learned
counsel appearing for the State and learned counsel appearing for the
respondent No. 2.
2. Prayer in this writ petition is made for quashing of the order
dated 19.04.2024, passed by the learned Judicial Commissioner,
Ranchi, in Criminal Revision No. 125 of 2024, whereby the order dated
29.02.2024, passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, 1 st Class,
Ranchi, in complaint Case No. 3004 of 2021, has been affirmed, by
which, the learned Magistrate has been pleased to direct the petitioner
to pay Rs. 20,00,000/- (20% of the cheque amount) to the respondent
No. 2 as interim compensation within 60 days from the date of order in
terms of Section 143(A) of the Negotiable Instrument Act, 1881 [N.I.
Act], now the case is pending before the learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st
Class, Ranchi.
3. Mr. Gautam Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the
petitioner submits that an agreement was entered into between the
petitioner and the respondent No. 2 for making a movie. He submits
that a cheque of Rs. 50,00,000/- was given by the petitioner to the
respondent No. 2, which was dishonoured and for that a complaint case
was filed under the NI Act. He submits that the trial is still pending and
on the petition, filed by the respondent No. 2, the learned court has
been pleased to direct the petitioner by order dated 29.02.2024 to pay
Rs. 20,00,000/- (20% of the cheque amount) to the respondent No. 2 as
interim compensation within 60 days from the date of order in terms of
Section 143(A) of the N.I. Act, which was challenged before the
learned revisional court, wherein the learned revisional court has
affirmed that order. He further submits that both the orders are not
passed under the parameters of Section 143(A) of the NI Act and the
same have been passed without making any proper inquiry and without
giving any reason, both the orders have been passed. He submits that in
the mechanical way, Section 143(A) of the NI Act cannot be applied
and to buttress his argument, he relied in the case of Rakesh Ranjan
Shrivastava Versus State of Jharkhand & Anr., reported in 2024 SCC
OnLine SC 309, wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court in para-22, held
as follows:-
"22. 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."
4. Relying on the above judgment, he submits that in absence
of the disclosure of the prima facie reasons, the said orders have been
passed, in view of that, these orders may kindly be quashed.
5. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent-State submits
that on the petition of the respondent No. 2, the learned courts have
passed the orders.
6. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent No. 2 has
opposed the prayer on the ground that the both the learned courts have
rightly passed the orders under Section 143(A) of the NI Act as the
provisions are there.
7. In view of the above and looking into the orders of the
learned first court as well as learned revisional court, it transpires that
only on the ground that the case is summary in nature and accusation
has been explained and the accused has not pleaded guilty and in light
of Section 143(A) of the NI Act, these orders have been passed. Further
in a mechanical way, the orders under Section 143(A) of the NI Act is
not admissible and the learned court will have to prima facie evaluate
the merits of the case made out by the complainant, then pass such
orders and this aspect of the matter has been considered by the Hon'ble
Supreme court in the case of Rakesh Ranjan Shrivastava (Supra), as
relied by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner.
8. As such, the impugned orders dated 19.04.2024, passed by
the learned Judicial Commissioner, Ranchi, in Criminal Revision No.
125 of 2024 and the order dated 29.02.2024, passed by the learned
Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Ranchi, in complaint Case No. 3004 of
2021, are hereby, set aside.
9. The application filed by the respondent No. 2 is restored, on
which, further hearing will be made by the learned trial court and the
learned court will pass an appropriate order in light of the observations
made hereinabove after hearing both the sides.
10. With the above terms, this petition is disposed of.
(Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J.)
Amitesh/-
[A.F.R.]
