HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No.8373/2024 Pradeep Kumar Sharma S/o Shri Babulal Sharma, Aged About 42 Years, R/o Shyam Colony, Shahpura, Tehsil Shahpura, Police Station Shahpura, District Jaipur (Raj). ----Petitioner Versus 1. State Of Rajasthan, Through P.P. 2. Dheeraj Kumar Sharma S/o Shri Mahesh Chand, Aged About 45 Years, R/o Baba Shyam Colony, Shahpura, Tehsil Shahpura, Police Station Shahpura, District Jaipur (Raj) ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Martand Pratap Singh For Respondent(s) : Mr. Jitendra Singh Rathore, PP JUSTICE ANOOP KUMAR DHAND Order 09/01/2025 1. The instant criminal misc. petition has been preferred against the impugned order dated 09.09.2024 passed by the Judicial Magistrate, Shahpura District Jaipur in Criminal Complaint No.269/2023 by which the petitioner has been directed to pay a sum of Rs.5 lakhs to the complainant in terms of Section 143A of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act of 1881”). 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the respondent-complainant filed a criminal complaint under Section 138 of the Act of 1881 against the petitioner alleging therein that a cheque of Rs.41,50,500/- was issued by the petitioner but the same was return unpaid, hence he filed a criminal complaint (2 of 3) [CRLMP-8373/2024] against the petitioner. Learned counsel submits that when the matter was taken for arguments, the Trial Court was of the view that the complainant could not make it clear as to how a sum of Rs.41,50,500/- was due against the petitioner till 08.09.2022 and simply on the basis of hypothecation the Trial Court came to the conclusion that a sum of Rs.25,00,000/- was due. Accordingly, the petitioner has been directed to pay 20% of the aforesaid amount to the complainant, in terms of Section 143A of the Act of 1881. 3. Learned counsel submits that when this fact has not been established on the record prima facie that how the sum i.e. Rs.41,50,500/- was due till 08.09.2022, the Trial Court should not have determined the liability of the petitioner prima facie to the tune of Rs.25,00,000/- until recording of evidence of both the sides is completed. Hence, under these circumstances, interference of this court is warranted. 4. Heard and considered the submissions made at Bar and perused the material available on the record. 5. Perusal of the record indicates that the complainant- respondent submitted a complaint under Section 138 of the Act of 1881 against the petitioner for return of the cheque amounting to Rs.41,50,500/-. As per Section 143A of the Act of 1881, at this stage, the Trial Court can pass an order directing the accused to pay an amount equal to 20% of the cheque amount but going a step ahead and without waiting for the stage of recording of evidence of both the sides, a suo motu finding has been recorded by the Trial Court that the due amount against the petitioner could have been Rs.25,00,000/- till 08.09.2022. The Trial Court was not (3 of 3) [CRLMP-8373/2024] supposed to record such finding at this stage and was not to make its own interpretation at this stage. 6. Since the complainant has not assailed the aforesaid order, this Court is not making any further comment in the matter. If the analogy as contained under the provisions of Section 143A of the Act of 1881 is taken into consideration, the petitioner was supposed to pay 20% amount of the cheque amount i.e. Rs.41,50,500/- but the relaxation has been granted by the Trial Court without any basis. However, at this stage, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the order impugned. 7. Accordingly, the criminal misc. petition stands dismissed. Stay application as well as all applications (pending, if any) also stand dismissed. (ANOOP KUMAR DHAND),J Karan/122