K. Ganesh vs Puli Shiva Kumar Goud
2023 Latest Caselaw 262 Tel

     HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE G. ANUPAMA CHAKRAVARTHY

           CRIMINAL REVISION CASE No.30 of 2020
ORDER :

This revision is arising out of the orders in Crl.M.P.No.1348

of 2019, dated 15.10.2019, in C.C.No.57 of 2019 on the file of

XXII Additional Metropolitan Magistrate, Cyberabad at Medchal,

Ranga Reddy District.

2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as

arrayed before the trial Court.

3. Heard learned counsel for the Revision petitioner as well as

respondent and perused the record.

4. It is pertinent to mention that the order under challenge is a

docket order, dated 15.10.2019, which reads as under:

"No counter is filed. Heard. In view of incorporation of Sec.143-A of NI Act, as the accused pleaded not guilty, the accused is directed to deposit 20% of Cheque amount by 14-11-2019."

5. The contention of the learned counsel for petitioner is that

the word "may" was incorporated in Section 143-A of the

Negotiable Instruments Act (by way of amendment)), and

therefore, it is a matter of discretion of the Court to direct the

GAC, J Crl.RC.No.30 of 2020

accused to deposit 20% of the cheque amount, but no reasons are

assigned by the Court as to why such order was passed. Therefore,

prayed to set aside the impugned orders.

6. On the other hand, the learned counsel for respondent has

contended that the impugned order is an interlocutory order, and as

this revision is filed against the interlocutory orders of the trial

Court, there is a bar under Section 397(2) of Cr.P.C. and this Court

has to dismiss the revision, as it is not maintainable in the eye of

law.

7. The provisions of Section 143-A, as enacted by the

Parliament in Negotiable Instruments (Amendment) Act (Act

No.20 of 2018) and notified in the Gazette of India, Extraordinary,

Part II, Section I, No.32, dated 02.08.2018, read as under:

"143A. (1) Notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, the Court trying an offence under section 138 may order the drawer of the cheques to pay interim compensation to the complainant--

(a) in a summary trial or a summons case, where he pleads not guilty to the accusation made in the complaint; and

GAC, J Crl.RC.No.30 of 2020

(b) in any other case, upon framing of charge.

(2) The interim compensation under sub-

section (1) shall not exceed twenty per cent of the amount of the cheque.

(3) The interim compensation shall be paid within sixty days from the date of the order under sub-section (1), or within such further period not exceeding thirty days as may be directed by the Court on sufficient cause being shown by the drawer of the cheques.

(4) If the drawer of the cheques is acquitted, the Court shall direct the complainant to repay to the drawer the amount of interim compensation, with interest at the bank rate as published by the Reserve Bank of India, prevalent at the beginning of the relevant financial year, within sixty days from the date of the order, or within such further period not exceeding thirty days as may be directed by the Court on sufficient cause being shown by the complainant.

(5) The interim compensation payable under this section may be recovered as if it were a fine under section 421 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

(6) The amount of fine imposed under section 138 or the amount of compensation awarded under section 357 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, shall be reduced by the amount paid or

GAC, J Crl.RC.No.30 of 2020

recovered as interim compensation under this section."

8. The aforesaid amendment was made by the Parliament for

speedy disposal of the cases relating to the offences of dishonor of

cheques. As there are delay tactics of unscrupulous drawers of

dishonored cheques due to easy filing of appeals and obtaining stay

of proceedings, Section 143-A has been incorporated, to direct the

accused to deposit 20% of the cheque amount.

9. Though it is contended by the learned counsel for respondent

that the revision case itself is not maintainable as it is filed

challenging an interlocutory order, there is slight distinction

between the 'interlocutory' orders and 'intermediate' orders, as has

been held in the judgment of this Court in Crl.R.C.(SR).No.3198 of

2022, dated 27.04.2022. Paras 14, 15 and 16 of the said judgment

read as under:

"14. Therefore, from the decisions of the Supreme Court, for the purpose of Section 397 of the Cr.P.C., orders may be classified as interlocutory orders, intermediate orders and final orders.

15. To further clarify, an interlocutory order is the one which is interim and temporary in nature. It is the opposite of a final order. In other words, an

GAC, J Crl.RC.No.30 of 2020

interlocutory order will not result in culmination or termination of final proceedings. Interlocutory orders are merely ancillary orders which are decided at the interim stage and such orders aid in deciding the final rights and liabilities of the parties.

16. An order passed in an interlocutory application during the intermediate stage of the proceedings might decide the rights and liabilities of parties. Such an order though interlocutory has to be termed as an 'intermediate order'. An interlocutory application can be decided either ways. If it is decided in one way it might be an interlocutory order, but if the same is decided the other way it might result in culmination of proceedings.

Therefore, interlocutory applications where the orders might result in culmination of proceedings shall be treated as intermediate orders against which a revision application under Section 397(2) of the Cr.P.C. is maintainable [See Girish Kumar Suneja v. CBI1]

As per the aforesaid observations of this Court, the impugned order

is an intermediate order, but not interlocutory order. Therefore,

revision is maintainable against the said order.

10. On perusal of the impugned docket order, it is evident that

no reasons have been assigned by the trial Court while directing the

accused to deposit 20% of the cheque amount. A judicial order of

the Court shall be a reasoned order. But the order under challenge

(2017) 14 SCC 809

GAC, J Crl.RC.No.30 of 2020

does not contain any reasons or of judicial application of mind, and

therefore, it is liable to be set aside.

11. In view of the aforesaid discussion, the docket order dated

15.10.2019 in Crl.M.P.No.1348 of 2019 in C.C.No.57 of 2019 on

the file of XXII Additional Metropolitan Magistrate, Cyberabad at

Medchal, Ranga Reddy District, is hereby set aside. The matter is

remanded back to the trial Court for passing appropriate orders

afresh by assigning valid reasons. Further, as the matter is of the

year 2019 and it is a summons case, the trial Court shall dispose of

the main C.C. itself within a period of six months from the date of

receipt of this order.

12. With the above directions, the Criminal Revision Case is

disposed of.

Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand

closed.

________________________________ G.ANUPAMA CHAKRAVARTHY, J Date: 20.01.2023

ajr