CRM-M-19244 IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND 139 Ajit Singh Bagga Chetan Sharma CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE MANISHA BATRA Present:- MANISHA BATRA, J. 1. petitioner seeking quashing of Court of learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Rupnagar in Criminal Complaint bearing CIS No. NACT Ajit Singh Bagga etc. complainant under Section 143 direct the present petitioner to make payment of 15% of the cheque amount as interim compensation, had been allowed and the petitioner was directed to make payment of an 2. custody in connection with a rape case since 22.12.2022. He is the sole bread earner for his family. Due to his being behind bars make the payment of interim compensation to the respondent in terms of the impugned order. It is further argued that while passing the impugned order, 19244-2025 (O&M) IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Ajit Singh Bagga Versus Chetan Sharma CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE MANISHA BATRA Mr. Naveen Siwach, Advocate for the petitioner. MANISHA BATRA, J. (Oral) The instant one is the second petitioner under Section 528 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 quashing of order dated 18.11.2024 (Annexure P Court of learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Rupnagar in Criminal Complaint bearing CIS No. NACT-413-2022, titled as Ajit Singh Bagga etc., whereby an application, moved by the complainant under Section 143-A of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 to direct the present petitioner to make payment of 15% of the cheque amount as interim compensation, had been allowed and the petitioner was directed to make payment of an amount of Rs.3,75,000/ It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that he custody in connection with a rape case since 22.12.2022. He is the sole bread earner for his family. Due to his being behind bars make the payment of interim compensation to the respondent in terms of the impugned order. It is further argued that while passing the impugned order, IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM-M-19244-2025 (O&M) Date of decision: 07.04.2025 ...Petitioner Versus ...Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE MANISHA BATRA Naveen Siwach, Advocate The instant one is the second petition that has been filed by the tiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 order dated 18.11.2024 (Annexure P-2), passed by the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Rupnagar in Criminal 2022, titled as Chetan Sharma vs. whereby an application, moved by the respondent A of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 to direct the present petitioner to make payment of 15% of the cheque amount as interim compensation, had been allowed and the petitioner was directed to amount of Rs.3,75,000/- to the respondent-complainant. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that he is custody in connection with a rape case since 22.12.2022. He is the sole bread earner for his family. Due to his being behind bars, he is not in a position to make the payment of interim compensation to the respondent in terms of the impugned order. It is further argued that while passing the impugned order, -1- 2025 (O&M) 07.04.2025 ...Petitioner ...Respondent by the tiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 2), passed by the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Rupnagar in Criminal Chetan Sharma vs. respondent- A of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 to direct the present petitioner to make payment of 15% of the cheque amount as interim compensation, had been allowed and the petitioner was directed to complainant. is in custody in connection with a rape case since 22.12.2022. He is the sole bread , he is not in a position to make the payment of interim compensation to the respondent in terms of the impugned order. It is further argued that while passing the impugned order, MOHAMMAD WASEEM ANSARI 2025.04.08 18:21 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-19244 the petitioner was not given any opportunity of hearing that the impugned order is liable to be set aside. 3. length and have also gone through the material placed on record. 4. the application moved by the respondent arguments thereon had been given to the present petitioner. He had not denied his signatures on the cheque in question. A vague reply had been He had not denied his liabi detailed order had been passed by the learned Magistrate while giving direction to the petitioner to make payment of 15% of the cheque amount as interim compensation to the respondent. Merely because the custody in some other case, he cannot claim exemption from making payment of interim compensation to the respondent. Accordingly, finding no ground in the petition, the same is dismissed. 07.04.2025 Waseem Ansari 19244-2025 (O&M) the petitioner was not given any opportunity of hearing that the impugned order is liable to be set aside. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner at considerable length and have also gone through the material placed on record. A perusal of record reveals that proper opportunity to file repl the application moved by the respondent arguments thereon had been given to the present petitioner. He had not denied his signatures on the cheque in question. A vague reply had been He had not denied his liability to pay the amount of the cheque in question. A detailed order had been passed by the learned Magistrate while giving direction to the petitioner to make payment of 15% of the cheque amount as interim compensation to the respondent. Merely because the custody in some other case, he cannot claim exemption from making payment of interim compensation to the respondent. Accordingly, finding no ground in the petition, the same is dismissed. 07.04.2025 Whether speaking/reasoned Whether reportable the petitioner was not given any opportunity of hearing. Therefore, it is ur that the impugned order is liable to be set aside. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner at considerable length and have also gone through the material placed on record. A perusal of record reveals that proper opportunity to file repl the application moved by the respondent-complainant and to address arguments thereon had been given to the present petitioner. He had not denied his signatures on the cheque in question. A vague reply had been filed by him lity to pay the amount of the cheque in question. A detailed order had been passed by the learned Magistrate while giving direction to the petitioner to make payment of 15% of the cheque amount as interim compensation to the respondent. Merely because the petitioner is in custody in some other case, he cannot claim exemption from making payment of interim compensation to the respondent. Accordingly, finding no ground in (MANISHA BATRA) JUDGE Yes/No Yes/No -2- herefore, it is urged I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner at considerable A perusal of record reveals that proper opportunity to file reply to complainant and to address arguments thereon had been given to the present petitioner. He had not denied filed by him. lity to pay the amount of the cheque in question. A detailed order had been passed by the learned Magistrate while giving direction to the petitioner to make payment of 15% of the cheque amount as petitioner is in custody in some other case, he cannot claim exemption from making payment of interim compensation to the respondent. Accordingly, finding no ground in MOHAMMAD WASEEM ANSARI 2025.04.08 18:21 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document