1 2025:CGHC:4506 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR CRMP No. 294 of 2025 1 - Sheelu Goyal W/o Bheem Goyal Aged About 45 Years Proprietor Siddhi Vinayak Process, R/o Main Road Pratapgarh, Police Station And Tehsil Sitapur, District Sarguja, C.G. ... Petitioner versus 1 - Saurabh Agrawal S/o Late Shri Daya Kishan Garg Aged About 25 Years R/o Near Bus Stand Lakhanpur, Police Station And Tehsil Lakhanpur, District Sarguja, C.G. ... Respondent For Petitioner : Mr. Aman Tamboli, Advocate For Respondent : None Hon'ble Shri Justice Arvind Kumar Verma Order on Board 24/01/2025 1. With the consent of the learned counsel for the petitioner, the matter is heard finally. 2. This petition has been preferred by the petitioner under Section 528 of the Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 being aggrieved with the impugned order dated 09.10.2024 (Annexure P-1) passed by the learned second Sessions Judge, Ambikapur District Sarguja, Chhattisgarh in Criminal Revision No. 24/2024, whereby the learned Revisional Court has affirmed the order dated 08.01.2024 (Annexure P-2) passed by the learned judicial Magistrate First Class, Ambikapur in criminal Complaint no. 323 of 2020. 2 3. Brief facts of this case are that parties to the lis are close relatives. One Vishnu Goyal and Bheem Goyal are real brothers, Sheelu is the wife of Bheem and Gayatri is the wife of Vishnu. Gayatri had a brother namely Late Shri Daya Kishan Garg. Pooja Garg is the wife of the Late Shri Daya Kishan Garg and as such the parties are closely related to each other. The respondent filed a complaint against the petitioner for offence punishable under Sections 138 of NI Act and 420 of IPC alleging that after the sad demise of his father the non-applicant/petitioner use to take care of the complainant and his family as guardians. It is alleged that the complainant and his mother had received compensation upon death of his father and had also received some amount by selling certain properties. It is alleged that she had received a total amount of Rs. 40,00,000/-. It is alleged that the petitioner along with her husband, her brother-in-law and his wife had taken loan of Rs. 40,00,000/- from the complainant stating that she is their close relative and cannot do business on her own. It is further alleged that when the complainant’s son demanded back the amount so advanced from the petitioner/non-applicant and her family members. It is alleged that in order to discharge her liability, petitioner/non- applicant issued a cheque bearing no. 057366 dated 26.09.2019 of State Bank of India Branch, Patthalgaon of Rs. 20,00,000/- which was dishonored upon submission for encashment with endorsement of insufficient balance. The demand notice sent by the complainant was neither complied nor replied. Based on these allegations, the complainant instituted his complaint alleging the petitioner to be held guilty for offfences punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code. Respondent/complainant filed an application under Section 143-A of the NI Act and requested for 3 grant of 20% of the cheque amount as interim compensation. Learned Trial court allowed complainant’s application for grant of interim compensation and directed the petitioner to pay only 5% of cheque amount i.e. Rs. 1,00,000/- to the complainant within 60 days and directed that in case of failure proceeding under Section 421 of the Cr.P.C would be drawn against petitioner. Hence, this petition. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that both the courts below have failed to exercise the jurisdiction vested by law. The jurisdictional error so committed needs immediate interference by this Hon’ble Court in exercise of its extraordinary inherent jurisdiction to secure the ends of justice and to prevent abuse of the process of court. He further contended that the learned courts below have grossly failed to appreciate that the provision of Section 143-A of the NI Act is not mandatory. He further contended that while deciding the application under Section 143A, the Trial Court is under an obligation to bear in mind that the presumption of Section 139 of the NI Act comes into picture only when the trial commences and not at the initial stage of deciding the application under Section 143A and moreover that it is a rebuttable presumption. Hence, it is prayed that this Hon’ble court be pleased to call for entire records from the court of learned Second Sessions Judge, Ambikapur District Sarguja, Chhattisgarh in the matter of Criminal Revision No. 24/2024 and also the records from the court of the learned Judicial Magistrate Firstt class, Ambikapur in the matter of Criminal Complaint No. 324 of 2020. Further, it is prayed that the Hon’ble Court be further pleased to set aside the impugned order dated 09.10.2024 and consequently set-aside the impugned order dated 08.01.2024, in the interest of justice. 4 5. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner, and perused the impugned orders and other material available on record with utmost circumspection. 6. Considering the facts of the case, pleadings made in the petition and submission of learned counsel for the petitioner. Further considering that the learned trial court allowed complainant’s application by granting interim compensation and directed the petitioner to pay 5% i.e. Rs. 1,00,000/- of cheque amount to the complainant and reasoned order passed by the courts below which is adequate, therefore, in the opinion of this Court that there is no illegality and infirmity in the impugned orders dated 09.10.2024 (Annexure P-1) and 08.01.2024 (Annexure P-2) passed by the courts below. 7. Accordingly, the present petition being devoid of merits is liable to be and is hereby dismissed and stands disposed of. sd/- (Arvind Kumar Verma) Judge alfiza