Punjab-Haryana High Court
Sukhchain Singh vs State Of Punjab And Anr on 23 April, 2024
Author: Gurvinder Singh Gill
Bench: Gurvinder Singh Gill
2024:PHHC:054851
In the High Court for the States of Punjab and Haryana
At Chandigarh
CRM-M-19807-2024 (O&M)
Date of Decision:-23.4.2024
Sukhchain Singh ... Petitioner
Versus
State of Punjab and another ... Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GURVINDER SINGH GILL
Present:- Mr. Imran Farooqi, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. Vinay Kumar Malhotra, DAG, Punjab.
*****
GURVINDER SINGH GILL, J. (Oral)
1. The petitioner assails order dated 20.2.2024 (Annexure P-3) passed by
learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Malerkotla vide which the learned Trial
Court has directed the petitioner/accused to deposit an amount of 20% of the
cheque amount in terms of provisions of Section 143-A of Negotiable
Instruments Act.
2. The relevant extract from the impugned order reads as under:
".........Accused has furnished no explanation whatsoever as to how his
cheque in question came into the hand of complainant. As per
provisions of Section 143-A of Negotiable Instruments Act, accused is
directed to pay 20% of the cheque amount as interim compensation to
the complainant within a period of 60 days from today. It is also
pertinent to mention here that the cheque amount in question is huge
CRM-M-19807-2024 (O&M) (2) 2024:PHHC:054851
i.e. Rs. 10,74,000/- and in case accused is found guilty, this court is of
the view that punishment of more than one year may be awarded,
hence, this case should not be tried summarily and it should be tried as
summons case. Entire complainant evidence be concluded on next
date of hearing and payment of interim compensation amount be made
on next date of hearing....."
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that since no detailed reasons have
been assigned in the impugned order for directing the petitioner to deposit
20% of the cheque amount, the same is unsustainable particularly in view of
ratio of judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court rendered in Rakesh Ranjan
Shrivastava Versus The State of Jharkhand & another, 2024(2) R.C.R.
(Criminal) 279. Learned counsel has placed reliance upon para No.16 of the
aforesaid judgment, which is reproduced hereinunder:
"16. When the court deals with an application under Section 143A of
the N.I. Act, 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
under subsection (1) of Section 143A. The presumption under
Section 139 of the N.I. Act, by itself, is no ground to direct the
payment of interim compensation. The reason is that the
presumption is rebuttable. The question of applying the
presumption will arise at the trial. Only if the complainant makes
out a prima facie case, a direction can be issued to pay interim
compensation. At this stage, the fact that the accused is in
financial distress can also be a consideration. Even if the Court
concludes that a case is made out for grant of interim
compensation, the Court will have to apply its mind to the
quantum of interim compensation to be granted. Even at this
stage, the Court will have to consider various factors such as the
nature of the transaction, the relationship, if any, between the
accused and the complainant and the paying capacity of the
accused. If the defence of the accused is found to be prima facie a
CRM-M-19807-2024 (O&M) (3) 2024:PHHC:054851
plausible defence, the Court may exercise discretion in refusing to
grant interim compensation. We may note that the factors required
to be considered, which we have set out above, are not exhaustive.
There could be several other factors in the facts of a given case,
such as, the pendency of a civil suit, etc. While deciding the
prayer made under Section 143A, the Court must record brief
reasons indicating consideration of all the relevant factors. "
4. This Court has considered the aforesaid submissions.
5. A perusal of complaint would indicate that it is a case where the complainant
alleges that the petitioner had entered into an agreement for sale of land to the
complainant and in respect of which he had received an amount of
Rs.10,74,000/- by way of cheques. It is also alleged that as a matter of fact it
transpired that the petitioner was not even owner of the land and there was
merely an agreement in his favour. Since the sale deed was not executed
within the stipulated time, it had been agreed amongst the parties that the
earnest money be returned to the complainant. The petitioner accordingly
issued cheques to return the earnest amount, which came to be dishonoured.
6. The aforesaid facts indicate that specific and crisp allegations have been
levelled by the complainant, wherein the details of payments earlier made by
the complainant have also been clearly described and the said payment was
made by way of cheques. Under these circumstances, upon the petitioner
having failed to execute the sale deed and having issued the cheques in
question to return the earnest amount, which came to be dishonoured, a
prima facie case is made out to proceed against the petitioner under Section
138 of Negotiable Instruments Act. The Trial Court in its order has
specifically recorded that the accused has not furnished any explanation
whatsoever as to how the cheques in question came into the hands of the
CRM-M-19807-2024 (O&M) (4) 2024:PHHC:054851
complainant. As such, this Court finds that it is indeed a case where
directions could have been issued for deposit of 20% of the cheque amount
as have been issued by learned Trial Court. The impugned order is not found
to be suffering from any infirmity to warrant any interference. The instant
petition is sans merit and is hereby dismissed.
23.4.2024 ( Gurvinder Singh Gill )
Pankaj Judge
Whether speaking /reasoned Yes / No
Whether Reportable Yes / No
