Petition under Section 528 BNSS challenging dismissal of a revision against an interim compensation order under Section 143A NI Act in a cheque dishonour complaint. The court held the orders were reasoned and correct and dismissed the petition.
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.
$~48
BHUPINDER SINGH JOLLY .....Petitioner
Through: Mr. Anil Sharma, Mr.Jaspreet Singh and Mr. Ravinder, Advs.
versus
SURAJ PRAKASH CHOPRA .....Respondent Through: None.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE SHALINDER KAUR
SHALINDER KAUR, J. (ORAL)
Signature Not Verified
Page 1 of 7
Digitally Signed CRL.M.C. 1751/2025 By:NEELAM Signing Da te:1 7.03.2025 19:14:32
business for the past few years. As a dispute arose between the two, a mutual agreement was entered into between the parties vide the settlement agreement dated 23.03.2021.
Signature Not Verified
Page 2 of 7
Digitally Signed CRL.M.C. 1751/2025 By:NEELAM Signing Da te:1 7.03.2025 19:14:32
evidence presented by the respondent, which clearly shows that the petitioner has been falsely implicated. He submits that the learned PD&SJ has failed to appreciate the contents of the complaint under Section 138 of the NI Act, which vaguely states that there were business transactions between the petitioner and the respondent, however no such details and specifics of any such transactions are forthcoming in the complaint.
Signature Not Verified
Page 3 of 7
Digitally Signed CRL.M.C. 1751/2025 By:NEELAM Signing Da te:1 7.03.2025 19:14:32
seized by the Income Tax Department since 11.03.2020 and therefore, the petitioner is not in a position to pay the interim compensation awarded. In light of these circumstances, he submits the present petition be allowed.
“ 10. I have considered the contentions raised by the rival sides and perused the record too. The plea taken by the Revisionist before the Ld. Trial court that settlement was a forced one and the respondent was aware of the fact that the bank account of the Revisionist was seized, still he presented the cheque to create a pressure and to drag him into the court. The same is not acceptable inasmuch as there is no complaint to any authority or anyone that the Revisionist was coerced to sign the Settlement Agreement. In any case, the Revisionist had an option to issue stop payment/instruction to his Banker qua the cheques, which were all post dated cheques, signed and handed over by him to the respondent. In the absence of any such thing, it appears that the contentions put forth are nothing but a ploy just to scrape through this situation where the Revisionist has landed.
Signature Not Verified
Page 4 of 7
Digitally Signed CRL.M.C. 1751/2025 By:NEELAM Signing Da te:1 7.03.2025 19:14:32
11. The parameters which are required to be considered while considering the application U/s.143(A) of the NI Act, it was observed in the judgment titled as Rakesh Ranjan Srivastava Vs. State of Jharkhand, [(2024) SCCOnline SC3091, as under:
22. Subject to what is held earlier, the main conclusions can be summarized as follows :
a. The exercise of power under subsection (I) of Section 143A is discretionary. The provision is directory and not mandatory. The work "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.
c. The broad parameters for exercising the discretion under Section 143A are as follows:
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 14pt consideration.
ii A direction to pay interim compensation can be issued, only if the complainant makes out a prima facie case. 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.
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
Signature Not Verified
Page 5 of 7
Digitally Signed CRL.M.C. 1751/2025 By:NEELAM Signing Da te:1 7.03.2025 19:14:32
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."
12. On the aforesaid parameters too, the impugned order is correct. There appears no flaw either of fact or law. In view of these facts, the law on the subject, the Revisionist is unable to carve out a case in his favour.
13. In view of the foregoing discussion, the facts and the law, both stand against the Revisionist. The purpose of Section 138 of NI Act, especially Section 148 NI Act is to create a kind of atmosphere of some financial responsibility qua the persons who use Negotiable Instruments, especially cheques. The drawer of a cheque is supposed to be careful while issuing and should ensure that it would be honoured. Any lapse in the shape of dishonour of the cheque has been made punishable with a view that people should responsibly issue such cheques. The provision of interim compensation was initially not there in the statute but has been added into it as it was found that the proceedings are being dragged and the desired results in terms of the objects and purpose of the statute, more particularly Section 138 NI Act, was not forthcoming, thus this provision of interim compensation was brought in. The sole aim was to provide some solace to the recipient of the cheque under certain circumstances. 14. Since the Revisionist is unable to make out a case to show that the impugned order was either not proper or legal or correct or that it suffers from some perversity. Therefore, the same does not require any interference in these proceedings. As a result, the Revision Petition stands dismissed. File be consigned to Record Room.”
Signature Not Verified
Page 6 of 7
Digitally Signed CRL.M.C. 1751/2025 By:NEELAM Signing Da te:1 7.03.2025 19:14:32
SHALINDER KAUR, J
MARCH 12, 2025/SU/FRK
Click here to check corrigendum, if any
Signature Not Verified
Page 7 of 7
Digitally Signed CRL.M.C. 1751/2025 By:NEELAM Signing Da te:1 7.03.2025 19:14:32
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the trial court's direction to pay interim compensation under Section 143A NI Act was sustainable despite the claim that Section 143A is directory.
Whether the petitioner's plea that the settlement deed was signed under coercion warranted interference.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Rakesh Ranjan Shrivastava vs the State of Jharkhand & AnrRelied on¶15
2024 INSC 205 · Who else cites this
Rakesh Ranjan Srivastava Vs. State of JharkhandRelied on
(2024) SCCOnline SC3091
5 provisions across 3 enactments
Bhupinder Singh Jolly
Suraj Prakash Chopra
Shalinder Kaur
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
