1 2025:CGHC:5235 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRMP No. 1182 of 2022 Bhupendra Singh Atbhaiya So Shri Kunwar Singh Atbhaiya, Aged About 40 Years R/o Satguru Furniture, Main Road Bajrang Nagar, Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh. ... Petitioner versus 1 - Sanjay Kumar Das S/o Shri Rasbihari Das, Aged About 48 Years R/o -J- 78, Sec.-2, Shankar Nagar Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh. 2 - State Of Chhattisgarh, Through District Magistrate, District Raipur Chhattisgarh. ... Respondents For Petitioner : Ms. Fouzia Mirza, Sr. Advocate along with Mr. Ali Afzaal Mirza, Advocate For Respondent No.1 : Mr. Sajal Kumar Gupta, Advocate appears on behalf of Mr. Saurabh Dangi, Advocate For Respondent No.2 : Ms. Pushplata Khalkho, Panel Lawyer Hon’ble Shri Justice Arvind Kumar Verma Order on Board 29/01/2025 1. With the consent of the parties, matter is heard finally. VASANT KUMAR Digitally signed by VASANT KUMAR 2 2. The present petition under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 has been preferred by the petitioner against the order dated 24.06.2022 passed by the 12th Additional Sessions Judge, Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.) in Criminal Revision No.60/2022, whereby the learned Revisional Court has modified the order passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Raipur in Criminal Complaint Case No.1780/2020 dated 06.12.2021 by raising the interim compensation amount under Section 143-A of the Negotiable Instruments act, 1881 from 5% to 20% of the cheque amount and has rejected the revision petition filed by the petitioner. 3. Brief facts of the case is that the respondent no. 1/complainant has filed a complaint U/s 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act before learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Raipur bearing the Criminal Complaint case no. 1780/2020. As per the complaint the petitioner/accused gave the cheque of State Bank of India bearing cheque no. 512177 of amount Rs. 5,50,000/-, which was submitted by the respondent no. 1/complainant before his Bank, but the same was returned on the ground of "Insufficient Funds". After which the respondent no. 1/complainant sent legal notice to the petitioner/accused, but the cheque amount was not given to the respondent no. 1/complainant, on which the respondent no. 1/complainant filed complaint U/s 138 of NIA against the petitioner/accused. 4. On 01.12.2021 the respondent no. 1/complainant filed an application U/s 143-A of Negotiable Instrument Act seeking 20% of cheque amount 3 as interim compensation. The application U/s 143-A of NIA was partly allowed by the JMFC Raipur vide its order dated 06.12.2021, whereby the petitioner/accused was directed to pay 5% of cheque amount i.e. Rs.27,500/- within 60 days. 5. Being aggrieved by the order dated 06.12.2021, both the parties preferred a Revision before the 12th Additional Session Judge, Raipur. The petitioner/accused preferred the revision bearing no. 60/2022 against the order dated 06.12.2021 against the direction of payment of 5% of cheque amount to the respondent no. 1/complainant, whereas the respondent no. 1/complainant preferred the revision bearing no. 72/2022 for modification of the impugned order dated 06.12.2021 from 5% to 20% of cheque amount as interim compensation amount. 6. Learned Revisional Court heard both the revision together and have rejected the revision bearing no. 60/2022 preferred by the petitioner/accused & partly allowed the revision bearing no. 72/2022 by modifying the order dated 06.12.2021 preferred by the respondent no. 1/complainant vide its order dated 24.06.2022. Hence, this petition. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the learned Revisional Court failed to appreciate the fact that the liability of the petitioner/accused for the repayment has already been discharged by the petitioner/accused and the cheque has been withheld by the respondent no. 1/complainant and have been misused by filing the complaint case U/s 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act. She further 4 contended that the learned Revisional Court failed to appreciate the fact that the statement of account of the petitioner/accused itself shows the transaction between the petitioner/accused and the respondent no. 1/complainant while taking the money on credit and also the money which has been returned back to the respondent no. 1/complainant which itself makes it clearly evident that the cheque that has been given to the respondent no. 1/complainant was the cheque as a security measure and even after repayment of the money given on credit to the petitioner/accused, the cheque has been malafidely withheld by the respondent no. 1/complainant and has been used in filing a complaint case against the petitioner/accused by suppressing the facts from the learned court below, which is an abuse of process of law. It is further contended that complaint filed against the petitioner/accused is not tenable as the respondent no. 1/complainant has misused the cheque, which was given as security and the amount has already been refunded to the respondent no. 1/complainant, therefore, if the petitioner/accused has to pay the 5% or 20% of the cheque amount it will cause financial hardship to the petitioner/accused as he has already paid the amount to the respondent no. 1/complainant. It is, therefore, prayed that this Court in exercise of its inherent powers under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. may kindly be pleased to allow this petition and thereby quash the impugned order dated 24.06.2022 (Annexure-P/1) whereby the petitioner/accused has been directed to pay 20% of the cheque amount and consequently quash the order dated 06.12.2021 (Annexure-P/2), in the interest of justice. 5 8. Learned counsel for the respondents oppose the submission made by learned counsel for the petitioner and contended that the orders passed by the Courts below are just and proper and needs no interference. 9. I have heard learned counsel for the respective parties and perused the impugned orders passed by the Courts below and other related documents with utmost circumspection. 10.Considering the facts of the case and submission made by learned counsel for the parties, in the present, the learned Sessions Court has set aside the order passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class on the ground that the learned trial Court has not assigned any reason while awarding 5% compensation to the complainant and it is further observed by the Sessions Court that at the stage of order regarding interim compensation, there appears to be a provision to provide interim compensation up to 20% of the cheque amount without considering the merits and demerits of the case. Thus, the order of the learned trial court to fix only 5% of the cheque amount as interim compensation is not shown to be lawful, hence the said order is worthy of interference. Therefore, the Criminal Revision No. 72/2022 filed on behalf of the complainant-Sanjay Kumar is accepted as it is acceptable and the order dated 06.12.2021 passed by the learned trial court is partially amended by fixing 20% of the cheque amount instead of 5%., thus, allowed the revision preferred by the complainant and awarded 20% of compensation. 6 11. In the opinion of this Court, the learned revisional Court has committed error of law in construing the judgment passed by this Court in case of Rajesh Soni Vs. Mukesh Verma reported in (2022) 1 CGLJ (SN 4) 6. In that case this Court has not passed any order for payment of 20% of compensation in favour of the complainant in all cases of 138 of NI Act, but it is held that the word 'may' has been used which should be read as 'shall' and the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class while awarding the compensation under Section 143-A of NI Act has not committed any error of law in allowing such application exercising its discretion. Further the learned Sessions Court has not assigned reason as to why 20% compensation has been awarded by enhancing the same from 5% to 20%. Therefore, in the facts of the present case, the order passed by the learned Sessions Court is hereby set aside and the matter is remitted back to the concerned Court to decide the revision preferred by the petitioner afresh, after affording proper opportunity to the parties, strictly in accordance with law and particularly according to the provision of Section 143-A of NI Act. 12.With the aforesaid observation, this petition stands disposed of. Sd/- (Arvind Kumar Verma) Judge Vasant