Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Vagharam vs State Of Rajasthan (2025:Rj-Jd:39497) on 4 September, 2025
[2025:RJ-JD:39497]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Criminal Misc(Pet.) No. 7459/2025
Vagharam S/o Laduram, Aged About 45 Years, Ramdev Colony
Tehsil And District Jalore Raj.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Pp
2. Raj Provision Store, Through Propreitor, Choparam Mali S/
o Sawaram R/o Sire Mandir Road Tehsil And District Jalore
Raj.
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Vishal Sharma a/w Mr. Robin.
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Surendra Bishnoi, PP.
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MUKESH RAJPUROHIT
Order
04/09/2025
1. The petitioner herein seeks quashing of the order dated
15.01.2025 passed by learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate
No.2, District Jalore, in Criminal Case No.208/2024 (CIS Case
No.1025/2024), vide which a condition has been imposed to pay
20% of the cheque amount i.e. Rs.40,000/- within 60 days as per
the Section 143-A of NI Act.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner
is a low-paid private employee, working almost like a daily-wager,
and is earning only a meagre sum of Rs.10,000/-. The impugned
order has been passed by the ACJM mechanically, without
apparently any application of mind and/or otherwise recording the
reasons as to why the petitioner-accused has been directed to pay
interim compensation.
[2025:RJ-JD:39497] (2 of 3) [CRLMP-7459/2025]
3. Reference may be had to Hon'ble Apex Court judgment
rendered in Rakesh Ranjan Shrivastava v. State of
Jharkhand & Anr1, wherein detailed parameters have been
summarized enumerating the circumstances, under which interim
compensation can be granted by the learned trial court during
pendency of the trial, which for ready reference are extracted
here-in-below :-
19. 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. It is clear from the order assailed herein that aforesaid
parameters, laid down by the Apex Court, have not been taken
into consideration.
1 (2024) 3 SCR 438
[2025:RJ-JD:39497] (3 of 3) [CRLMP-7459/2025]
5. There is no gainsaying that though the trial court is vested
with the power to pass such orders, but not without complying the
ratio laid down by the Supreme Court ibid.
6. Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, I am in
agreement with the arguments canvassed by him.
7. In the premise, after perusing the impugned order and the
case file, I am of the view that looking at the financial condition of
the petitioner, directing him to deposit 20% of the cheque amount
as per impugned order, shall result in jeopardizing his case being
dismissed/effected on account of non-compliance of the condition
of deposit. He seems to be in financial distress and has to be
granted indulgence in the larger interest of justice to enable him
to defend himself in the pending case.
8. As an upshot, the petition is allowed. The impugned order
dated 15.01.2025 passed by learned Additional Chief Judicial
Magistrate No.2, District Jalore, in Criminal Case No.208/2024
(CIS Case No.1025/2024), is modified to the extent that the
learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate shall proceed with
hearing of the case without insisting the petitioner to pre-deposit
the 20% fine amount and decide the case, in accordance with law.
9. Pending application(s), if any, also stand(s) disposed of.
(MUKESH RAJPUROHIT),J
341-/Jitender//-
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
