In a decisive ruling on criminal financial disputes, the Jammu & Kashmir High Court dismissed a petition challenging an interim compensation order issued under Section 143A of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. The Court emphasized the necessity of pursuing alternate remedies before approaching the High Court, underscoring procedural propriety in matters concerning cheque dishonour disputes.
The matter arose when Sabzar Ahmad Bandh filed a complaint under Section 138 of the NI Act alleging dishonour of cheques totaling Rs. 61 lakh by Tafazul Fazili. Alongside the complaint, the complainant sought interim relief under Section 143A, requesting 20% of the cheque amount. The trial magistrate granted partial interim compensation of Rs. 6.1 lakh in favour of the complainant.
The petitioner approached the High Court directly, claiming the magistrate’s order lacked reasoned justification and was arbitrary. Counsel for the petitioner argued that judicial discretion under Section 143A requires detailed reasoning consistent with Supreme Court precedents, citing Rakesh Ranjan Srivastava v. State of Jharkhand.
The High Court scrutinized whether the order was interlocutory or final. The Bench held that “the order passed on an application filed under Section 143A of the Negotiable Instruments Act is not an interlocutory order but an intermediate order… which can be subjected to challenge in a revision petition before the Sessions Court.”
Observing that the petitioner bypassed the prescribed alternate remedy, the Court found the petition “misconceived and liable to be dismissed,” effectively upholding the magistrate’s interim compensation order while reaffirming procedural channels for challenging such decisions. Consequently, the petition was dismissed in limine.
Case Title: Tafazul Fazili vs. Sabzar Ahmad Bandh
Case No.: CRM (M) No. 777/2025
Coram: Justice M. A. Chowdhary
Advocate for Petitioner: Adv. Umar Mir
Advocate for Respondent: Nope
Read Order @Latestlaws.com
Picture Source :
