Dismissed¶15

Shivnath Singh v. State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. and Another

Allahabad HC17 Jan 2025A482/373/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Section 143-A N.I. Act interim compensation upheld; 20% of cheque amount; Rs. 1,89,000 interim compensation; Section 482 application dismissed; signed cheque admitted by accused; accused claimed he did not fill in cheque amount; Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate Room No.3 Raebareli order dated 18.11.2024; complainant Harishankar Mishra; applicant Shivnath Singh; respondents State of U.P. and another; Hon'ble Karunesh Singh Pawar, J.; Allahabad High Court, Lucknow Bench; Neutral Citation 2025:AHC-LKO:2985; decided 17.1.2025.

What did the court decide?

On perusal of the impugned order and the record, the factum of the accused signing the cheque and giving it to the complainant stands admitted. ¶14

Shivnath Singh Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Prin. Secy… — Cheque Dishonour | Allahabad HC (2025)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:2985

¶2

Court No. - 16

¶3

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 373 of 2025

¶4

Applicant :- Shivnath Singh Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Narvind Kumar Singh,Preeti Yadav Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Karunesh Singh Pawar,J.

¶6

Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A. for respondent State.

¶7

Notice to respondent no.2 is dispensed with in view of the proposed order.

¶8

Through this application, the applicant is challenging the impugned order dated 18.11.2024 passed by the court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate Room No.3 Raebareli by which the application filed by the complainant for payment of interim compensation under Section 143-A of N.I.Act has been allowed. The operative part of the impugned order dated 18.11.2024 is extracted below:-

¶9

"The Complainant has prayed and pleaded for said compensation under a statutory provision after commencement of trial of this case. On the other hand, though the Accused has opposed the Interim Compensation plea yet he has admitted to the factum of giving a signed cheque to the Complainant. As such, taking into account these facts and in due compliance of the provision enshrined under Section 143-A N.I. Act, the Complainant is entitled to Interim Compensation amounting of 20% of the said cheque amount. Thus, the Application filed by Complainant is hereby being allowed as under. Ground is sufficient in interest of justice.

¶10

Order

¶11

The Application filed by Applicant Harishankar Mishra under Section 143-A N.I. Act is hereby permitted. The Accused Shivnath Singh is directed to pay amount of Rs. 1, 89, 000/(One Lakh Eighty-Nine Thousand Rupees) in form of Interim Compensation to the Complainant within a period of 30 days from today and the Endorsement of the giving and obtaining of the Interim Compensation shall be made by both the parties.

¶12

Let File be put up for Complainant evidence on date- 18.01.2025."

¶13

Perused the record.

¶14

Perusal of the impugned order so also the record shows that factum of signing the cheque and giving cheque to the complainant has been admitted. Although it is submitted by learned counsel for the applicant that he has not filled in the amount in the cheque and he is disputing the averments of the complaint to that extent. Learned court below has taken into account these aspects and after considering these arguments as well as statutory provisions under Section 143-A of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, interim compensation has been ordered. There appears to be no illegality in the order impugned.

¶15

The application, being devoid of merit, is accordingly dismissed.

¶16

Order Date :- 17.1.2025

¶17

Madhu D.R/P.S

¶18

Digitally signed by :- MADHU KUMARI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Shivnath Singh v. State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shivnath Singh v. State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Avadhram Shukla and 3 Others Vs the State of U.P. Thru. Its Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Krishnendra Bajpai and Another Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. and Another

Ravikant Pandey Thru. His Father Shashikant Pandey Vs Smt. Neha Pandey

Nirmal Singh Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. to the Govt. Deptt. of Home, Lko. U.P. and 4 Others

Dayaram and Another Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Civil Sectt. Lko. and Another

Durgesh @ Durgesh Dixit and Another Vs State of U.P. Thru. Its Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. U.P. Lko. and Another