Allowed

V.Rani v. G.Chidambaram

Madras HC11 Jul 2023CRL OP/5614/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The CrOP challenged the Magistrate's suo motu order directing the petitioner to pay interim compensation without recording reasons. The High Court held that the discretion must be exercised with recorded reasons per precedent. The order awarding compensation was set aside, allowing the CrMP for expert opinion to proceed.

What did the court decide?

Last portion of the lower court order granting interim compensation set aside; direction to obtain expert opinion and proceed with trial within three months.

V.Rani Vs G.Chidambaram — Cheque Dishonour | Madras HC (2023)

¶1

Crl.O.P No.5614 of 2022

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED : 11.07.2023

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N. ANAND VENKATESH

¶6

Crl.O.P No.5614 of 2022 and Crl.M.P.No.3092 of 2022

¶7

V.Rani D/o.Veeramuthu ... Petitioner

¶8

vs.

¶9

G.Chidhambaram S/o.Ganapathy ... Respondent

¶10

PRAYER: Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, praying to set aside the order dated 06.12.2021 passed in Crl.M.P.No.2707 of 2021 in STC No.587 of 2019 by learned Judicial Magistrate I, Virudhachalam and allow the said Crl.M.P.No.2707 of 2021 filed by the petitioner.

¶11

For Petitioner : Mr.D.Muthuselvam For Respondent : Mr.M.Selvam

¶12

¶13

ORDER

¶14

This Criminal Original Petition has been filed challenging the order

¶15

passed by learned Judicial Magistrate I, Virudhachalam, in Crl.M.P.No.2707 of

¶16

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶17

1/7

¶18

Crl.O.P No.5614 of 2022

¶19

2021 in STC No.587 of 2019, dated 06.12.2021.

¶20

The respondent has filed a complaint against the petitioner for offence u/s.138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. During the pendency of the case, the petitioner filed Crl.M.P.No.2707 of 2021 in STC No.587 of 2019 to send the subject cheque for expert opinion for comparison of the signature. This application was allowed by the Court below by order dated 06.12.2021. However, while allowing the application, the Court below suo motu ordered for payment of interim compensation u/s.143-A of the Negotiable Instruments ACt and thereby, directed the petitioner to pay a sum of Rs.40,000/- as interim compensation within 60 days. This portion of the order has been put to challenge in the present Criminal Original Petition.

¶21

Heard Mr.D.Muthuselvam, learned counsel for petitioner and Mr.M.Selvam, lerned counsel appearing for respondent.

¶22

It is seen from records that the respondent/complainant had initially filed an application in Crl.M.P.No.667 of 2021 seeking for interim compensation u/s.143-A of the Negotiable Instruments Act. This application was considered by the Court below and by an order dated 08.09.2021, the Court found that the interim compensation sought for by the respondent/complainant, https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 2/7

¶23

Crl.O.P No.5614 of 2022

¶24

is not warranted on the facts of the case. While so, while allowing the application filed by the petitioner seeking for expert opinion, the Court below, by order dated 06.12.2021, suo motu directed for payment of interim compensation by the petitioner. This order was passed within a span of three (3) months from the earlier order dismissing the petition in Crl.M.P.No.667 of 2021.

¶25

The payment of interim compensation u/s.143-A of the Negotiable Instruments Act is a discretion that has been given to the learned Magistrate. This Court in L.G.R. Enterprises and Ors. v. P.Anbazhagan [ 2019 (4) LW 44 ] has examined as to how such a discretionary remedy should be exercised. The Bombay High Court in Ashwin Ashokrao Karokar v. Laxmikant Govind Joshi [ 2022 (2) MWN (Cri.) DCC 184 ] has held that the direction to pay interim compensation is not mandatory in nature and if such a relief is granted, the Court has to necessarily record its reasons. This is, in view of the fact that the reasons for exercising such a discretionary power must be spelt out in the order.

¶26

In the instant case, the learned Magistrate has not assigned any reason as to why the interim compensation was awarded in favour of the complainant. In the last portion of the order, the learned Magistrate straightaway exercised

¶27

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶28

3/7

¶29

Crl.O.P No.5614 of 2022

¶30

suo motu power and ordered for interim compensation. Such grant of interim compensation without assigning any reasons, suffers from illegality. Hence, the last portion of the order granting interim compensation is liable to be interfered with by this Court. Learned Magistrate has virtually granted a relief to the complainant in a petition filed by the accused.

¶31

In the light of the above discussion, the last portion of the order granting interim compensation in favour of the complainant is hereby set aside. There shall be a direction to get expert opinion and the Court below shall proceed further with the trial. The proceedings in STC No.587 of 2019 shall be completed within a period of three (3) months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

¶32

In the result, this Criminal Original Petition is allowed in the above terms. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

¶33

11.07.2023

¶34

Index : Yes/No Speaking Order/Non-Speaking Order Neutral citation : Yes/No gm

¶35

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶36

4/7

¶37

Crl.O.P No.5614 of 2022

¶38

¶39

The Judicial Magistrate I, Virudhachalam.

¶40

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶41

5/7

¶42

Crl.O.P No.5614 of 2022

¶43

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶44

6/7

¶45

Crl.O.P No.5614 of 2022

¶46

N. ANAND VENKATESH., J

¶47

¶48

Crl.O.P No.5614 of 2022

¶49

11.07.2023

¶50

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶51

7/7

V.Rani v. G.Chidambaram

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

V.Rani v. G.Chidambaram

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

V.Manoharan Vs State Rep by

K.C.Koushik Vs State Rep by

G.Boopathi Vs State Rep by

V.Prabhakaran Vs State Rep by

Azhagesan Vs State Rep by

Govindaraaj Vs Sunil Anand