Sri Shashidhara Pai K B vs Sri Abdul Rahim
2023 Latest Caselaw 1965 Kant

                                                  -1-
                                                           CRL.P No. 703 of 2023




                           IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

                               DATED THIS THE 23RD DAY OF MARCH, 2023

                                                BEFORE
                                 THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE K.NATARAJAN
                                  CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 703 OF 2023
                      BETWEEN:

                      1.   SRI SHASHIDHARA PAI K B
                           S/O B RAMESH PAI
                           AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS,
                           R/O PAI COMPOUND
                           LAILA VILLAGE,
                           BELTHANGADY TALUK
                           D.K
                           PROPRIETOR OF PAI CARES,
                                                                     ...PETITIONER
                      (BY SRI. MOHAMMED MOIN ULLA., ADVOCATE)

                      AND:

                      1.   SRI ABDUL RAHIM
                           S/O IBRAHIM
                           AGED ABOUT MAJOR,
                           PROPRIETOR OF DELMA SANITORY
                           R/AT SHARAFA MANZIL
                           PERINJE
Digitally signed by
SHOBHA C                   HOSANGADY
Location: High             BELTHANGADY TALUK 574 237
Court of Karnataka
                                                                    ...RESPONDENT
                      (NOTICE TO RESPONDENT DISPENSED WITH)

                            CRL.P FILED U/S.482 CR.P.C BY THE ADVOCATE FOR THE
                      PETITIONER PRAYING THAT THIS HONOURABLE COURT MAY BE
                      PLEASED TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 22.07.2022
                      PASSED BY THE HONBLE PRINCIPAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC
                      BELTHANGADY TO THE IA NO.1 FILED U/S.143-A OF NI ACT BY THE
                      PETITIONER IN C.C.NO.202/2022 AND ALLOW THE IA NO.1.

                           THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY,
                      THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
                                  -2-
                                              CRL.P No. 703 of 2023




                               ORDER

This petition is filed by the petitioner/complainant under

section 482 of Cr.P.C for setting aside the order passed by the

trial court in CC No.202/2021 for having rejected the

application filed under section 143 A of NI Act.

2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. Looking to

the facts and circumstance of the case, issuing notice to

respondent no.2 is dispensed with.

3. The case of the petitioner is that the petitioner filed a

complaint under section 200 Cr.P.C read with 143(A) of

Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (herein after referred as NI

Act) against respondent for having dishonored the cheque for

payment of Rs.39 lakhs and after the sworn statement the

cognizance was taken. The accused was summoned and

appeared before the Court, the accused pleaded not guilty.

Therefore, the petitioner filed an application under section 143

(A) of NI Act for granting 20% of compensation as interim

compensation payable by the accused, which came to be

dismissed. Hence he is before this court.

CRL.P No. 703 of 2023

4. Having heard the arguments and perusal of record

which reveals ofcourse the complainant filed complaint against

the respondent for dishonour of cheque under section 138 of NI

Act, as per the amended NI Act under section 143 (A) of NI

Act, it is mandatory under the law before the accused going for

trial and pleaded not guilty, then the court can impose upto

20% of the cheque amount as interim compensation. As per

section 148 of the NI Act, if the accused was convicted, the first

appellate court by suspending the sentence has imposed 20%

of fine amount as interim compensation and it has to be

deposited within 60 days from the date of the order plus 30

days if condoning the delay. In case the accused is granted an

acquittal, then the said amount is refundable to the accused

with bank interest . This court in Crl.P.Nos.1189/2023 and

connected cases in case of Sri.Lakshminarayan and Ors Vs

Sri.Lokesh L., and other catena of decisions has held that

though it is stated in discretion the trial court may impose

interim compensation upto 20% that does not mean it shall not

impose any condition for contesting the matter, when the

accused pleaded not guilty. This court also held in various

cases even the amount is not paid it can be recovered under

CRL.P No. 703 of 2023

section 431 read with 421 of Cr.P.C. This court has held it is

mandatory on the point of the trial court to impose 20% of the

interim compensation before going for trial if he pleads not

guilty. Such being the case, the order of the trial court is not

correct. Hence, it is liable to be set aside and is not in

accordance with law. Therefore, the order of the trial is set

aside, rejecting the application is hereby set aside.

Accordingly, the petition is allowed.

The order of rejection of the petition is hereby set aside

and remanded the matter back to the trial court for fresh

consideration by relying upon the judgment of this court and

dispose the interlocutory application within 2 weeks from the

date of receipt of the copy of the order.

Sd/-

JUDGE