Judgment reserved on 20.05.2025 Judgment delivered on 18.06.2025 HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Criminal Misc. Application No. 1455 of 2023 Savita ………Applicant Versus State of Uttarakhand & another ………Respondents Presence: Ms. Savita, applicant present in-person through Video Conferencing. Mr. Vipul Painuly, learned AGA for the State. Mr. Mohd. Alauddin, learned counsel for respondent no.2. Hon'ble Pankaj Purohit, J. (Oral) By means of the this C-482 application, the applicant is seeking quashing of Judgment and order dated 26.06.2023 passed by the learned Additional Sessions District Judge, Laksar, District Haridwar in Criminal Revision No. 9 of 2023 arising of Case No. 964 of 2022 (original case no. 68 of 2020) and summoning order dated 01.02.2020 in Case No. 68 of 2020 “Pal Singh versus Smt. Savita” under Section 138 N.I. Act, and order dated 03.05.2023 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate granting interim compensation of Rs. 30,000/- under Section 143A N.I. Act, to the complainant. 2. The fact in brief are that Mr. Pal Singh/respondent filed a complaint in the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate, Laksar, District Haridwar under Section 138 Negotiable Instrument Act 1881 (hereinafter referred as N.I. Act) alleging therein dishonor of cheque issued by present applicant. The learned Judicial Magistrate under Section 143A N.I. Act, passed an order directing the applicant to deposit 10% of cheque’s amount when she 1 pleaded not to be guilty. The applicant filed a revision against the said order and the learned revisional court dismissed the said revision. Hence, this application under Section 482 Cr.P.C., challenging the impugned judgment and orders. 3. The learned counsel for the applicant submits that the cheque issued by her to respondent no. 2 was not for a legally enforceable debt. She pleads that it was an advance amount paid by her to support respondent no. 2 in times of his distress and respondent no.2 in return provided to arrange for catering and decoration of the applicant’s daughter wedding. But when the said marriage was canceled for unavoidable reasons respondent no. 2 instead of returning the said amount filed a case for dishonor of cheque. 4. The learned counsel for the applicant further submits that the learned Judicial Magistrate and the learned revisional court has committed irregularting by misinterpreting the discretionary provisions of 143A N.I. Act, as mandatory. He relied on the case of Sri Narahyanswamy and ors V. Sri Ramesh J. S. Criminal Petition No. 1550 of 2022 dated 31.03.2022, to support his submission whereby the Hon’ble High Court of Karnataka upheld S. 143A to be discretionary in nature. 5. Respondent no. 2 in his counter affidavit submits that applicant has admitted her signature on the cheques and has also admitted that she issued the said cheque to him. He further submitted that Section 139 N.I. Act, raises a presumption in his favour regarding the fact that holder of the cheque received the cheque of nature referred to under Section 138 for the discharge in whole or in part of any debt or other liability. 6. There is no need to interfere in the summoning 2 order dated 01.02.2020 as it was never challenged in the Criminal Revision No. 964 of 2022. She cannot challenge the summoning order straight before this court without resorting to revisional jurisdiction. 7. The applicant in her rejoinder affidavit submits that Section 139 presumption is raised in favour of holder of the cheque “only till the contrary is proved” i.e. it is a rebuttable presumption of law. She submits that she has been successful in proving that the cheque was not issued for a legally enforceable debt. Hence, Section 139 N.I. Act, is of no use to the present applicant. 8. Heard the learned counsel for the parties. After going through the records of the case, relevant provision of N.I. Act, and case law relied upon by the applicant, this court is of the opinion that learned Judicial Magistrate, Laksar and learned Additional Sessions Judge, Laksar committed no irregularities is granting 10% interim compensation under Section 143A N.I. Act,. This court is well cognizant of the fact that Section 143A N.I. Act, is merely discretionary in nature and the provision is not mandatory. But it is a settled proposition of law that the discretion should be applied by application of judicial mind and by a well reasoned order. The case law relied on by the applicant also enumerates the same legal proposition that imposition of interim compensation without application of judicial mind is not permissible. On going through the orders of the learned Judicial Magistrate, this court found that imposition of 10% interim compensation has been granted by the learned courts below after application of Judicial mind and on the basis of well reasoned order. Therefore, the present application being misconceived is hereby dismissed. 3 9. According, the impugned judgment and order dated 03.05.2023 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate and order dated 26.06.2023 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, are hereby upheld. 10. The present C-482 application is hereby dismissed. (Pankaj Purohit, J.) 18.06.2025 Mamta 4