Orissa High Court
Pabitra Nayak@Naik vs Rejiti Ramaraju ..... Opposite Party on 10 September, 2025
Author: Aditya Kumar Mohapatra
Bench: Aditya Kumar Mohapatra
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
CRLMC No.218 of 2025
Pabitra Nayak@Naik ..... Petitioner
Represented By Adv. -
Mr. Soubhagya Kumar Dash
-versus-
Rejiti Ramaraju ..... Opposite Party
Represented By Adv. -
M/s. Biraja Prasanna Das,
J.S.Moharana, S.Das,
R.P..Nayak, N.Mohanty,
G.Mohanty
CORAM:
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ADITYA KUMAR MOHAPATRA
ORDER
10.09.2025
Order No.
03. 1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid Arrangement (Virtual/
Physical Mode).
2. Heard the learned counsel for the Petitioner as well as learned
counsel for the Opposite Party-Complainant. Perused the application as
well as the prayer made therein.
3. By filing the present application, the Petitioner seeks to invoke
the inherent jurisdiction of this Court to quash the impugned order
dated 30.08.2022 passed by the learned J.M.F.C., Gunupur in I.C.C.
No.07 of 2020.
4. The above noted I.C.C. No.07 of 2020 arises out of a complaint
made under Section 138 of the N.I. Act by the Complainant wherein he
has alleged that a cheque issued by the Petitioner for Rs.1,21,00,000/-
has been dishonoured by the drawal bank due to insufficiency of fund.
Thereafter, the present complaint has been filed at the instance of the
Complainant alleging commission of an offence punishable under
Section 138 of the N.I. Act.
5. In the I.C.C. case, the accused moved an application under
Section 143(A) of N.I. Act for payment of the interim compensation to
the tune of 20% of the cheque amount. Such application was objected
to by the Complainant. Finally, vide order dated 30.08.2022, the trial
court vide a detailed order allowed the application and directed the
Petitioner-accused to pay 5% of the cheque amount i.e. Rs.6,05,000/-
subject to the following conditions :-
(i) The case of acquittal of accused/OP, Petitioner
shall repay him the interim compensation received
along with prevalent interest within 60 days of
Judgment.
(ii) Accused/OP shall file an affidavit to this effect.
Although a specific direction was given to pay the amount within
60 days, the same has not been paid as of now. Order dated 15.11.2022
reveals that the lawyer for the sole accused filed a petition praying for
some time for payment of Rs.6,05,000/- to the Complainant on the
ground stated therein. The prayer for time was rejected. Accordingly,
N.B.W./A was issued against the Petitioner.
6. It appears that the accused-Petitioner never appeared before the
trial court till filing of the present application and that the N.B.W./A is
still pending for execution against the accused-Petitioner. In such
circumstances, the Petitioner has approached this Court in the year
2025 by filing this application challenging order dated 30.08.2022.
7. Learned counsel for the Petitioner, at the outset, referred to the
judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Rakesh Ranjan
Shrivastava v. State of Jharkhand and Another, reported in (2024) 4
SCC 419, wherein in paragraph-22, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has
laid down the factors to be considered while exercising discretion under
Section 143-A of the N.I. Act. In view of the aforesaid position,
learned counsel for the Petitioner contended that the order passed by the
trial court is unsustainable in law. Accordingly, the same should be
quashed.
8. Learned counsel for the Opposite Party-Complainant, on the
other hand, supported the order passed by the trial court. He further
contended that vide order dated 30.08.2022, the trial court has taken
note of all contentions raised by both sides and after a due
consideration of submissions made by the counsel from both sides, trial
court has directed for grant of interim compensation @ 5% although the
said section provides that interim compensation to the tune of a
maximum of 20% can be granted. In such view of the matter, learned
counsel for the Opposite Party-Complainant contended that impugned
order is in conformity with the provision of the N.I. Act, particular
Section 143-A of N.I. Act. Therefore, the same does not call for any
interference by this Court. He further contended that although the order
was passed in August, 2022, the Petitioner thought it proper to
challenge it after expiry of 2 ½ years. As such, it was contended that the
application filed by the Petitioner should not be entertained on the
ground of limitation. On such ground, learned counsel for the Opposite
Party-Complainant submitted that the application filed by the Petitioner
is devoid of merit, and, accordingly, the same should be dismissed.
9. Having heard the learned counsels appearing for the respective
parties, on a careful examination of the background facts as well as on a
close scrutiny of the impugned order dated 30.08.2022, this Court
observes that the Petitioner being aggrieved by the order passed by the
learned trial court thereby directing the payment of interim
compensation to the tune of Rs.6,05,000/-, which is 5% of the total
cheque amount which was dishonoured, has approached this Court by
filing the present application.
10. On perusal of the order dated 30.08.2022, this Court observes
that the learned trial court after a detailed discussion arrived at 5% of
the cheque amount to be paid as interim compensation and,
accordingly, a direction has been given to pay such amount. Although
the impugned order was passed on 30.8.2022 and the Petitioner took
time to make such payment on 15.11.2022, the trial court rejected the
application seeking time and the N.B.W./A has been issued against the
Petitioner. It appears that such N.B.W./A has not been executed till
date. In the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the Petitioner has
approached this Court by filing the present application for quashing of
order dated 30.08.2022 after almost a gap of 2 ½ years. Therefore, the
prayer of the Petitioner is to be considered in the aforesaid factual
backdrop.
11. Learned counsel for the Petitioner, in course of his argument,
referred to the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Rakesh
Ranjan Shrivastava's case (supra). On perusal of the aforesaid
judgment, this Court observes that the Hon'ble Supreme Court has laid
down the guidelines in paragraph-22 of the said judgment. Such
guideline provides that the trial 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 reply to the application under
Section (1) of the 143-A of the N.I. Act. The mere presumption under
Section 139 of the N.I. Act, by itself, is no ground to direct the payment
of interim compensation, as the presumption is rebuttable in nature.
Thus, if the complainant makes out a prima facie case for giving a
direction for payment of interim compensation, necessary direction can
be issued by the trial court for payment of such compensation.
However, the trial court, while issuing such direction, shall also
consider the financial distress, if the same is pleaded by the accused.
12. Considering the impugned order dated 30.08.2022, in the light of
the parameters prescribed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Rakesh
Ranjan Shrivastava's case (supra), this Court found that the trial court
has not committed any illegality as the trial court after considering the
case from both the sides, has directed for payment of interim
compensation @ 5% of the dishonoured cheque amount. The impugned
order dated 30.08.2022 is also unassailable on the ground that the
Petitioner has approached this Court after a gap of 2 ½ years that too
when a N.B.W./A has been issued against him which was within his
knowledge and the same remained unexecuted for more than two years.
13. In view of the aforesaid analysis of the legal as well as factual
position, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the impugned order
passed by the trial court.
14. Accordingly, the CRLMC stands dismissed.
15. However, this Court further observes that in the event the
Petitioner pays the interim compensation, as directed by the trial court
vide order dated 30.08.2022, within a period of four weeks and move
an application for recalling the order of N.B.W./A, the trial court shall
do well to recall the order of N.B.W./A and allow him to participate in
the trial. In the event the Petitioner fails to pay the interim
compensation, it is open to the trial court to take any coercive measure
to either enforce the order or to ensure that the Petitioner participates in
the trial.
( A.K. Mohapatra )
Judge
Debasis
