( 2025:HHC:39245 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA Cr.MP(M) No.1621 of 2024 Date of decision: 20.11.2025 Sunil Kumar Panta ….applicant/petitioner Versus Shyam Sunder ….respondent Coram: The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sushil Kukreja, J. Whether approved for reporting ?1 For the applicant/petitioner: Mr. I.S. Chandel, Advocate. For the respondent: Mr. P.K. Verma, Advocate. Sushil Kukreja, Judge(Oral): Cr.MP(M) No.1621 of 2024 No reply is intended to be filed on behalf of the non- applicant/respondent and he has no objection, in case, the present application is allowed. 2. Heard. For the reasons stated in the application, the same is allowed and delay of 44 days in filing the present petition, which in my considered view has sufficiently been explained, is hereby condoned. Application stands disposed of. Cr. Revision No.________of 2025 3. Be registered. 4. The present petition has been filed laying challenge to impugned order dated 15.02.2022, passed by learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No.1, Rohru, District Shimla, H.P., in Case 1 Whether the reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgement? 2 ( 2025:HHC:39245 ) (RBT) No.321-3 of 2021/2020, titled Shyam Sunder vs. Sunil Kumar Panta. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and also gone through the material available on record. 6. From perusal of the impugned order dated 15.02.2022, it is evident that learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No.1, Rohru had ascertained from the counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, as to whether, 10% of the cheque amount, as per provisions of Section 143 of the N.I. Act, had been deposited by the accused. Since, the petitioner had not deposited the interim compensation to the tune of 10% of the cheque amount, therefore, warrant of realization had been issued against the petitioner for recovery of 10% of the cheque amount. 7. The power to grant interim compensation has been provided under Section 143-A of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The broad parameters for exercising the discretion under Section 143-A of the N.I. Act had been culled out by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Rakesh Ranjan Shrivastava vs. State of Jharkhand and another, 2024 (4) SCC 419. The relevant extract of the same is being reproduced herein below:- “i. The Court will have to prima facie evaluate the merits of the case made out by the complainant and the merits of the defence pleaded by the accused in the reply to the application. The financial distress of the accused can also be a consideration. ii. A direction to pay interim compensation can be issued, 3 ( 2025:HHC:39245 ) only if the complainant makes out a prima facie case. iii. If the defence of the accused is found to be prima facie plausible, the Court may exercise discretion in refusing to grant interim compensation. iv. If the Court concludes that a case is made out to grant interim compensation, it will also have to apply its mind to the quantum of interim compensation to be granted. While doing so, the Court will have to consider several factors such as the nature of the transaction, the relationship, if any, between the accused and the complainant, etc. v. There could be several other relevant factors in the peculiar facts of a given case, which cannot be exhaustively stated. The parameters stated above are not exhaustive.” 8. Admittedly, in the case on hand, no order for grant of interim compensation in terms of Section 143-A of the N.I. Act has been passed by the Trial Court after considering the aforesaid parameters. 9. In view of above, present petition is allowed. Impugned order dated 15.02.2022, passed by learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No.1, Rohru, District Shimla, H.P., in Case (RBT) No.321-3 of 2021/2020, Shyam Sunder vs. Sunil Kumar Panta. is quashed and set aside. 10. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of. ( Sushil Kukreja ) Judge November 20, 2025 (reena)