Rajendra Kumar Jaat vs Lokendra Singh Sendhav
2022 Latest Caselaw 16520 MP

                1

  IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
               AT INDORE
                          BEFORE
  HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE SATYENDRA KUMAR SINGH

              ON THE 13th OF DECEMBER, 2022




           MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 54558 of 2019

BETWEEN:-
RAJENDRA KUMAR JAAT S/O SHRI HARIRAM JAAT, AGED ABOUT
41 YEARS, OCCUPATION: BUSIENSS BAGLI TEH. BAGLI AND
DISTRICT DEWAS / PRESENTLY RESIDING AT 37 DRAUPADI
NAGAR (MADHYA PRADESH)
                                              .....PETITIONER
(BY Ms. PRANJALI PANDYA, ADVOCATE)

AND
LOKENDRA SINGH SENDHAV S/O SHRI CHANDAR SINGH, AGED
ABOUT 38 YEARS, OCCUPATION: BUSIENSS THANE KE PICHE
HATPIPLIYA TEH. HATPIPLIYA DEWAS M.P./ SUBHASH CHOK
AKHADA ROAD RAM MANDIR KE PICHHE THANA KOTWALI
(MADHYA PRADESH)
                                           .....RESPONDENTS
(BY SHRI DEVDEEP SINGH, ADVOCATE)
      This application coming on for orders this day, the court
passed the following:

                           ORDER

This petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C.has been preferred against the order dated 6.8.2018 passed by the Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class, Bagli, District Dewas in Cri.Complaint Case bearing No.SCNIA No.20/2018, whereby applicant was directed to deposit 20% of the cheque amount under Section 143A of Negotiable Instruments Act (for short "N.I.Act").

2. Brief facts giving rise to this petition are that respondent filed a criminal complaint under Section 138 of N.I.Act against the applicant before the Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class, Bagli, District Dewas alleging that cheques bearing No.000054 dated 21.9.2017 amounting Rs.7,40,000/- and cheque bearing No.000055 dated 21.11.2017 amounting Rs.7,50,000/- were given by the applicant to the respondent in lieu of the dues in the light of the terms and conditions embodied under the agreement dated 27.8.2015, which was duly executed between the applicant and respondent for purchase of Tractor. On the said criminal complaint case bearing SCNIA No.20/2018 was registered against the applicant, wherein vide impugned order dated 6.8.2018 applicant was directed to deposit 20% of the cheque amount within sixty days from the date of order in the light of the provisions embodied under Section 143A of Negotiable Instruments (Amendment) Act, 2018. In compliance to the aforesaid order applicant deposited 20% of the aforesaid cheque amount on 29.11.2018 and 6.12.2018.

3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that Hon'ble the Apex Court in the case of G.J.Raja Vs. Tejraj Surana (Cri.Appeal No.1160 of 2019 @ SLP (Cl.) 3342 of 2019) has held that provisions of Section 143A of N.I.Act will be applied only in case where the offence under Section 138 of N.I.Act was committed after the enforcement of the amended provisions of Section 143A of N.I.Act. Applicant's case is purely covered and governed by the aforesaid judgment. Learned trial Court has committed error in applying the provisions of Section 143A of N.I.Act with retrospective effect. Hence, the impugned order is liable to be set aside.

4. Learned counsel for the respondent has opposed the prayer and submits that admittedly, the trial pending against the applicant has been almost completed, therefore, at this stage prayer made by the applicant cannot be allowed. Petition is devoid of merit and the same be dismissed.

5. Heard learned counsel for both the parties and perused the record.

6. From the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of G.J.Raja Vs. Tejraj Surana (supra), it is apparent that the law has been settled that provisions of Section 143A of N.I.Act will be prospective in operation. Relevant para is as follows:-

"In the ultimate analysis, we hold Section 143A to be prospective in operation and that the provisions of said Section 143A can be applied or invoked

only in cases where the offence under Section 138 of the Act was committed after the introduction of said Section 143A in the statute book.

Consequently, the orders passed passed by the Trial Court as well as the High Court are required to be set aside. The money deposited by the Appellant, pursuant to the interim direction passed by this Court, shall be returned to the Appellant along with interest accrued thereon within two weeks from the date of this order."

7. Upon perusal of the record it is apparent that the cheques in dispute were given on 21.9.2017 and 21.11.2017 i.e. prior to the enforcement of Section 143A of N.I.Act, therefore, impugned order dated 6.8.2018 directing the applicant to deposit 20% of the cheque amount within sixty days from the date of order as interim compensation is not sustainable and is liable to be set aside. Accordingly, the petition is allowed. The money deposited by the applicant pursuant to the aforesaid impugned order shall be returned to the applicant.

     Patil                                            (SATYENDRA KUMAR SINGH)
Digitally signed by                                            JUDGE
SHAILESH PATIL
Date: 2022.12.14
11:19:36 +05'30'