Disposed

Manoj Kumar v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC14 Jul 2025NA528/20854/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Quashing petition under Section 528 BNSS against trial court and revisional court orders granting 20% interim compensation under Section 143-A NI Act in a Section 138 complaint. High Court set aside both orders as they ignored binding criteria and remitted for fresh decision.

What did the court decide?

Orders dated 07.11.2024 and 09.05.2025 granting 20% interim compensation set aside; matter remitted to trial court for fresh order per Rakesh Ranjan Srivastava.

Manoj Kumar vs State of U.P. and Another — Cheque Dishonour | Allahabad HC (2025)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:111954

¶2

Court No. - 75

¶3

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 20854 of 2025

¶4

Applicant :- Manoj Kumar Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Vinay Kumar Pandey Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Vikas Budhwar,J.

¶6

Heard Sri Vinay Kumar Pandey, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Vikas Sharma, learned State Law Officer for the State.

¶7

This is an application under Section 528 of BNSS preferred by the applicant for quashing the impugned order dated 07.11.2024 passed by Court of Civil Judge (J.D.)/Judicial Magistrate Deoband, Saharanpur and impugned order dated 09.05.2025 passed by the court below/Court of Special Judge (E.C. Act)/Additional Session Judge Room No.4 Saharanpur in proceedings registered in pursuance of Complaint Case No.957 of 2023, " Ishtiyaq Vs. Manoj Kumar " under section 138 Negotiable Instrument Act, Police Station Badgaonv District Saharanpur, which is presently pending before Court of Civil Judge (J.D.)/Judicial Magistrate, Deoband, Saharanpur.

¶8

3.Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that a complaint stood lodged by O.P. No.2 under Section 138 N.I. Act against the applicant on 21.08.2023 with an allegation that with respect to discharge of a liability, two cheques bearing number "559908" for an amount of Rs.5,00,000/- and "559909" of Rs.4,00,000/- stood drawn by the applicant in favour of the O.P. No.2, which on presentation in the bank came to be dishonoured on 20.07.2023, a statutory demand notice was issued on 26.07.2023, followed by a complaint under Section 138 of N.I. Act on 21.08.2023 and the applicant came to be summoned by the court below under Section 138 of N.I. Act. Thereafter, an application under Section 143-A of N.I. Act came to be preferred by O.P. No.2 for grant of interim compensation to the tune of 20% which was objected by the applicant on 15.10.2024 and the same came to be allowed on 07.11.2024 by the court of Civil Judge (Jr. Div.), Devband,

¶9

Saharanpur in Complaint Case No.957 of 2023 on 07.11.2024, against which applicant preferred a Revision No.10 of 2025, which came to be rejected by the Special Judge (E.C. Act)/ Addl. Sessions Judge, Court No.4, Saharanpur on 09.05.2025.

¶10

Questioning both the orders, the applicant has filed the present application.

¶11

Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that the order passed by the trial court and the revisional court cannot be sustained even for a single moment, particularly when on mere asking and on irrelevant considerations, compensation to the tune of 20% has been accorded to the O.P. No.2 under Section 143A of the N.I. Act. He submits that the law in this regard is well crystalized in Rakesh Ranjan Srivastava v. State of Jharkand and another : (2024) 3 S.C.R. 438. Submission is that there are certain criteria which ought to have been considered while according interim compensation under Section 143A of the NI Act that is 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 reply to the application, the financial distress of the accused and a direction to pay interim compensation can only be issued if the complainant makes a prima facie , and if the defence of the accused is found to be prima facie plausible the Court exercise discretion in refusing to grant compensation and if the Court concludes that the case is made out from interim compensation, it would have to apply its mind to the quantum of interim compensation to be granted while considering the nature of the transaction, the relationship, if any, between the accused and the complainant itself. Submission is that none of the said criteria had been adhered to, thus, the both the orders be set aside and the matter be remitted back.

¶12

Learned A.G.A. submits that once the cheques stood drawn and have been dishnoured, the presumption under Section 139 of N.I. Act would be there, but he could not dispute the fact that while according compensation under Section 143-A, considerations, as mandated by the Hon'ble Court in Rakesh Ranjan Srivastava (Supra) have to be adhered to, the said exercise is lacking.

¶13

Since the parameter so enumerated in Rakesh Ranjan Srivastava (supra) has not been considered and the exercise is

¶14

lacking, thus, this Court has no option but to set aside the orders dated 07.11.2024 and 09.05.2025 .

¶15

Accordingly, the order dated 07.11.2024 passed by Court of Civil Judge (J.D.)/Judicial Magistrate Deoband, Saharanpur and order dated 09.05.2025 passed by the court below/Court of Special Judge (E.C. Act)/Additional Session Judge Room No.4 Saharanpur in proceedings registered in pursuance of Complaint Case No.957 of 2023, "Ishtiyaq Vs. Manoj Kumar under section 138 Negotiable Instrument Act, Police Station Badgaonv District Saharanpur, which is presently pending before Court of Civil Judge (J.D.)/Judicial Magistrate, Deoband, Saharanpur are set aside. Matter stands remitted back to the Trial Court to pass fresh order in light of the judgment in Rakesh Ranjan Srivastava (supra). For facilitation in speedy disposal, the certified copy of the order be furnished before the court below by 18.07.2025. The court below shall take endeavour to pass orders strictly in accordance with law without granting unnecessary adjournment particularly in view of the fact that learned counsel for the applicant, as per the instructions of his client, has disclosed that he shall not seek any unnecessary adjournment. If adjournment is granted, same shall not be more than five days in a stretch.

¶16

With the above observation, the application stands disposed of . Order Date :- 14.7.2025 N.S.Rathour

¶17

(Vikas Budhwar, J)

¶18

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

Manoj Kumar v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Manoj Kumar 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

Kamlesh Vishwakarma and Another vs State of U.P. and Another

Ashu Jain vs State of U.P. and Another

Santosh Kumar and 2 Others vs State of U.P. and 3 Others

Jaiveer Singh Alias Jaibeer Singh vs State of U.P. and Another

Habib vs State of U.P. and Another

Raghvendra Singh vs State of U.P. and Another