The Court dismissed the quashing petition challenging the interim compensation order passed by the Magistrate directing the accused to deposit 20% of the cheque amount under Section 143A of the NI Act. The Court found no illegality in the order and held the petition was a deliberate attempt to delay payment.
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.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CRIMINAL MISCELLANEOUS No.12872 of 2023
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-969 Year-2019 Thana- SAMASTIPUR COMPLAINT CASE District- Samastipur
======================================================
Vikash Kumar S/o Arun Sah R/o Ambedkar Nagar, Near House of Talim Miyan, Ward no. 22, P.S.- Nagar Samastipur, Distt- Samastipur.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Deepak Kumar, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s : Mr.Ashok Kumar Singh, APP
====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE CHANDRA SHEKHAR JHA ORAL JUDGMENT
Date : 24-04-2025
Heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
parties.
(P) Case No. 969 of 2019 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate,
2nd Class, Samastipur for the offences punishable under Section
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.12872 of 2023 dt.24-04-2025 2/5
138 of the N.I. Act.
the parties and upon perusal of record that learned JMFC, Samastipur vide its order dated 22.04.2022 directed petitioner to deposit Rs. 20% of the instrument amount i.e. Rs. 10 lacs in view of legal provision as available under Section 143A of the Negotiable Instrument Act, 1881 against which petitioner preferred revision before the Court of Additional District and Sessions Judge-IX, Samastipur, where the impugned order to deposit Rs. 20% of instrument amount was upheld by dismissing the revision petition preferred by petitioner bearing Cr. Revision No. 395 of 2022 vide its order dated 14.12.2022.
dated 22.04.2022, which reads as under:-
“ifjoknh ds fo}ku vf/koDrk fuonsu djrs gSa] fd ;g okn ,u0vkbZ0 ,DV dh /kkjk 138 ds vUrxZr py jgk gS ftlesa vfHk;qDr fodk”k dqekj ij 10 yk[k #i;s dks ysus ds ckn mDr jkf”k dks okil ugha djus dk vfHk;ksx gSA vfHk;qDr dks orZeku esa dqy cdk;k jkf”k esa ls 25 izfr”kr #i;k tks 2]50]000 #i;k curk gS rRdky ykSVkus dk vkns”k fn;k tk;A ;fn mDr jkf”k dks vfHk;qDr }kjk ugha ykSVk;k tkrk gS rks izkFkhZ dks Hkkjh {kfr gksxhA
cpko i{k ds fo}ku vf/koDrk ds }kjk blds izR;qrj esa dgk x;k gS] fd ifjoknh }kjk fn;k x;k vkosnu U;k; ds foijhr rFkk xyr rF;ksa ij vk/kkfjr gSA blfy, ifjoknh dk vkosnu [kkfjt fd;k tk;A
lquk x;k rFkk vfHkys[k dk voyksdu fd;k x;k] bl okn esa fnukad 29@07@19 dks vfHk;qDr fodk”k dqekj
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.12872 of 2023 dt.24-04-2025 3/5
ds f[kykQ ,uvkbZ0 ,DV dh /kkjk 138 ds vUrxZr izFke n`’V;k ekeyk cukA vfHk;qDr ij ifjoknh ds 10 yk[k #i;k dks ysdj okil ugha djus dk vfHk;ksx py jgk gSA orZeku esa mijksDr vfHk;qDr dh mifLFkfr iqjh gks pqdh gSA ,u0vkbZ0 ,DV dk fu;e gS] fd igyh mifLFkfr esa dqy ns; jkf”k dk 20 izfr”kr tek djuk gksrk gSA vr% mijksDr rF;ksa ds vkyksd esa vfHk;qDr dks funsZ”k fn;k tkrk gS] fd og dqy ns; jkf”k dk 20 izfr”kr tks 2]00]000 #i;k curk gS ifjoknh dks vxyh frfFk ij Hkqxrku djsA rnuqlkj bl vkosnu dks fuLrkfjr fd;k tkrk gSA”
revisional order dated 14.12.2022, which reads as under:-
“1. This Criminal Revision is directed against the order dated 22.04.2022 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate, Samastipur in C.R. case no. 969/2019 by which the ld. Judicial Magistrate, Samastipur directed the petitioner to deposit 20% of Rs. 10 lakh i.e., Rs. 2 lakh in the case registered u/s-138 of N.I Act.
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.12872 of 2023 dt.24-04-2025 4/5
Criminal Revision was liable to be dismissed.
Patna High Court CR. MISC. No.12872 of 2023 dt.24-04-2025 5/5
impugned order dated 22.04.2022, in which it was directed to pay 20% of instrument amount of Rs. 10 lacs i.e. Rs. 2 lacs appears in view of statutory provisions being interim compensation as available under Section 143A of Negotiable Instrument Act, 1881, which was rightly declined by learned Sessions Judge through Cr. Revision No. 395 of 2022 dated 14.12.2022 discussed aforesaid, as there was no illegality.
(Chandra Shekhar Jha, J)
veena/-
| AFR/NAFR | NAFR |
|---|---|
| CAV DATE | NA |
| Uploading Date | 25.04.2025 |
| Transmission Date | 25.04.2025 |
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the quashing petition challenging the order directing 20% deposit under Section 143A NI Act was devoid of merit and constituted a deliberate attempt to delay payment?
2 provisions across 1 enactments
Vikash Kumar
The State of Bihar
Vijay Sah
Chandra Shekhar Jha
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
