Disposed

Devesh Kumar Tyagi v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC5 Dec 2024CRLR/2153/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

On revision, the High Court upheld the trial court's dismissal of an application for interim compensation under Section 143A of the N.I. Act, finding no illegality as the complainant offered no cogent reasons. It further directed expedited trial under Section 143(3).

What did the court decide?

Revision dismissed; revisionist directed to file fresh application for interim compensation with cogent reasons; trial court directed to expedite trial.

Devesh Kumar Tyagi vs State of U.P. and Another — Cheque Dishonour | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC:191370

¶2

Court No. - 86

¶3

Case :- CRIMINAL REVISION No. - 2153 of 2024

¶4

Revisionist :- Devesh Kumar Tyagi Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Revisionist :- Satyendra Nath Tripathi Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Mayank Yadav,Vivek Kumar Singh

¶5

Hon'ble Ram Manohar Narayan Mishra,J.

¶6

The instant petition has been preferred against the order dated 04.03.2024 passed by Judicial Magistrate/Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division) Court No. 1, Meerut in Complaint Case No. 3239 of 2021 filed by complainant under Section 138 N.I. Act with the prayer to direct the accused to pay of Rs. 20% of cheque amount as interim compensation before the court below which are pay the amount to the complainant.

¶7

Heard learned counsel for the revisionist, learned A.G.A. for the State and learned counsel for respondent no. 2 and perused the record.

¶8

Learned counsel for the revisionist submits that the revisionist has filed complaint case under Section 138 N.I. Act which is pending before the court below the allegations against the opposite parties is that he has issued a cheque of Rs. 1,50,000/- to the complainant as insurance of part payment of date of Rs. 4 lacs taken by the accused from the complainant on 07.05.2020. However, the cheque was dishnoured/bounced when the complainant presents the cheque before the banker for encashment on 25.01.2021. As per the advice the memo issued from the bank the cheque got dishnoured due to "Payment Stopped by Drawer." He next submitted that revisionist moved an application before the court below on 26.09.2022 with the averment that the accused has been enlarged on bail in complaint case, provision of Section 143A (2) of N.I. Act are mandatory and its compliance should be assured by the complainant, therefore, in compliance of Section 143A (2) of N.I. Act the accused should be directed to deposit 20% of cheque amount as interim compensation to the complainant. The trial court vide order dated 04.03.2024 dismissed the application

¶9

with placing reliance on a judgment of Hon'ble Bombay High Court in Mr. Ashwin Ashokrao Karokar and Others Vs. Mr. Laxmikant Govind Joshi and Others [Criminal Writ Petition No. 48 of 2022 and Criminal Writ Petition No. 71 of 2022. D/d. 07.07.2022 and also on the judgment of Hon'ble Karnataka High Court in Smt. Vijaya vs. Shekharappa and Ors. [2022 ACD 571]. The learned trial court concluded that it is discretionary power of the court trying an offence under Section 138 of N.I. Act to direct payment of interim compensation to the complainant. However, the complainant has failed to assign any cogent reason for grant of interim compensation to him and the case is fixed for prosecution evidence and keeping in view of the facts and circumstances of the case the court is of the considered opinion that the application under section 143A N.I. Act is liable to be dismissed.

¶10

Learned counsel for the revisionist submits that observation of the learned trial court to the effect that application under Section 143A N.I. Act no specific reasons were assigned by the complainant to seek interim compensation by orders of the court on impression that the provisions are mandatory. However, in certain judicial pronouncements it is held that it is discretionary power of the court in appropriate case to grant interim compensation under Section 143A (2) of N.I. Act to the complainant. The revisionist has disclosed the cogent reason in present memo of revision for grant of interim compensation and that may be looked into by the Hon'ble Court. The provision is beneficial legislation to provide a succour in the form of interim compensation to the complainant, it should be taken into consideration liberally.

¶11

Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent no. 2 submits that the finding of learned trial court in impugned order is perfectly in accordance with law and this fact is denial that the application for claiming interim compensation filed by the revisionist for bereft of any cogent reason and for that reason no fault can be found with the impugned order, there is no illegality or perversity in the impugned order passed by learned trial court.

¶12

Learned counsel for the respondent no. 2 is placed a judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Criminal Appeal No. 741 of 2024 (Rakesh Ranjan Shrivastava Vs. The State of Jharkhand and Another) wherein a discussion has been made regarding ambit scope of application under Section 143A of N.I. Act learned counsel for the respondent no. 2 cited para no. 19 of the said judgment which may be reproduced under:

¶13

"19. Subject to what is held earlier, the main conclusions can be summarised as follows:

¶14

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.

¶15

c. The broad parameters for exercising the discretion under Section 143A are as follows:

¶16

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.

¶17

ii. A direction to pay interim compensation can be issued, only if the complainant makes out a prima facie case.

¶18

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.

¶19

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."

¶20

Considering the rival submissions of learned counsel for the parties and judgment cited in the impugned orders as well as judgment referred by learned counsel for the respondent no. 2 and provision of Section 143A of N.I. Act itself. I find no illegality, irregularity or perversity in the impugned order passed by the trial court in accordance with law and no interference is warranted therein in present revision.

¶21

However, it is open to the revisionist/complainant to file a fresh application assigning the cogent reasons for grant of interim compensation before the trial court. If the trial court deems fit and desirable, shall decide the application after giving an opportunity of hearing to both sides in accordance with law.

¶22

As the case is too old and pending since 2021 before the trial court, there is a specific provision under Section 143 (3) of the Act that every trial in this section shall be conducted as expeditiously as possible and an endeavor shall be made to conclude the trial within 6 months from the date of filing the complaint, the trial

¶23

court is expected to expedite the trial of the case and decide the same with utmost promptitude, as if possible.

¶24

The revision stands disposed of with the above observations.

¶25

Order Date :- 5.12.2024 Vikram

¶26

Digitally signed by :- VIKRAM SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Devesh Kumar Tyagi v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Devesh Kumar Tyagi v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ram Piyare and 3 Others vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko

Badri Vishal vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and 2 Others

Bharat Singh vs State of U.P. and Another

Akhand Pratap Singh vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and 3 Others

Suresh vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. and Another

Smt. Rashmi Singh vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another