A Section 482 CrPC petition challenged rejection of an application for 20% interim compensation under Section 143-A NI Act. Holding the provision directory, not mandatory, and noting the accused's denial and theft allegation, the High Court found no infirmity in the trial court's order and dismissed the application.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
**HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD ***********
Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC:128539
(Sl.No.16)
Court No. - 79
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 19412 of 2024
Applicant :- Anubhav Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Rajeev Kumar Saini Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Anish Kumar Gupta,J.
Act, 1881, which reads as under:
" Section 143 A. Power to direct interim compensation:
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 cheque 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
(b) in any other case, upon framing of charge.
2. The interim compensation under sub-section (1) shall not exceed twenty percent 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 cheque.
4. If the drawer of the cheque 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 recovered as interim compensation under this section."
" 14. In the case of Section 143A, the power can be exercised even before the accused is held guilty. Sub-section (1) of Section 143A provides for passing a
drastic order for payment of interim compensation against the accused in a complaint under Section 138, even before any adjudication is made on the guilt of the accused. The power can be exercised at the threshold even before the evidence is recorded. If the word ‘may’ is interpreted as ‘shall’, it will have drastic consequences as in every complaint under Section 138, the accused will have to pay interim compensation up to 20 per cent of the cheque amount. Such an interpretation will be unjust and contrary to the well-settled concept of fairness and justice. If such an interpretation is made, the provision may expose itself to the vice of manifest arbitrariness. The provision can be held to be violative of Article 14 of the Constitution. In a sense, sub- section (1) of Section 143A provides for penalising an accused even before his guilt is established. Considering the drastic consequences of exercising the power under Section 143A and that also before the finding of the guilt is recorded in the trial, the word “may” used in the provision cannot be construed as “shall”. The provision will have to be held as a directory and not mandatory. Hence, we have no manner of doubt that the word “may” used in Section 143A, cannot be construed or interpreted as “shall”. Therefore, the power under sub-section (1) of Section 143A is discretionary."
Order Date :- 8.8.2024 LN Tripathi
(Anish Kumar Gupta,J.)
Digitally signed by :- LALIT TRIPATHI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
2 issues framed by the court
Whether Section 143-A NI Act makes interim compensation mandatory upon a prima facie case, or is discretionary.
Whether the trial court's rejection of interim compensation without reasons warranted interference under Section 482 CrPC.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Rakesh Ranjan Shrivastava vs. The State of Jharkhand and anotherRelied on¶7
(2024) 3 SCR 438 · Who else cites this
3 provisions across 2 enactments
Anubhav
State of U.P.
Rishi Kumar
Anish Kumar Gupta
As recorded by the court registry
2 orders share this CNR
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
