1 2025:CGHC:6703 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRMP No. 3471 of 2024 1 - Sandeep Kumar Chourasiya, Son Of R.S. Chourasiya, Aged About 43 Years, Resident Of House No. 604, Beside Deputy Registrar Block Colony, Abhanpur, Tahsil-Abhanpur, Dist.- Raipur, (C.G.) ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - Vimal Kumar Sharma, Son Of Radhekrishna Sharma, Aged About 23 Years Resident Of Chourasiya Colony, Mathpuraina, Raipur, Tahsil And Dist.- Raipur, (C.G.) ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Shri K.K. Dewangan, Advocate. For Respondent(s) : Shri Anway Tiwari, Advocate. Hon’ble Shri Justice Arvind Kumar Verma Order on Board 05/02/2025 1. With the consent of the parties, heard finally. 2. Petitioner has preferred this CRMP under Section 528 of the Bhartiya Nagrik Suaksha Sanhita, 2023 vide order dated 05/09/2024, passed in Criminal Revision No. 198/2024 passed by the learned 14th Additional Sessions Judge, Raipur, District- Raipur (C.G.), arising out of the order dated 26/02/2024 passed in Complaint Case No. 5439/2022 by the learned First Class Judicial Magistrate, Raipur, District- Raipur (C.G.). 3. The respondents herein filed a complaint case U/s 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act against the petitioner, on account of dishonour of NARESH KUMAR KAMDE Digitally signed by NARESH KUMAR KAMDE Date: 2025.03.03 17:12:23 +0530 2 alleged cheque bearing cheque no. 888598 amounting to Rs. 9,50,000/- of State Bank of India, Abhanpur Branch, given by the petitioner, which was allegedly dishonoured on account of insufficient fund in the bank account of the petitioner. The respondent has alleged that the petitioner has borrowed the amount of Rs. 37,50,000/- from the respondent and for part payment of borrowed money, the petitioner has given the questioned cheque, which got dishonoured. The respondent has also filed an application under Section 143(A) of Negotiable Instrument Act (for short, ‘NI Act) before the trial Court for providing 20% of cheque amount from the petitioner. After receiving notice, the petitioner filed reply to the application U/s 143(A) of N.I. Act, whereby denied the allegations and submitted that in the legal notice the borrowed amount of Rs. 47,50,000/- has been mentioned by the respondent, whereas in the complaint case, the borrowed amount has been mentioned as Rs. 37,50,000/-. Similarly in the agreement, the complainant three cheques are mentioned bearing cheque no. 888597, 888598 & 888599, whereas the complaint has been filed only in respect of cheque no. 888598 for the amount of Rs. 9,50,000/-. The respondent has not produced any transaction receipt in respect of such huge amount and further he has not produced any document to show that he was in possession of such huge money. It was further specifically stated by the petitioner that the questioned blank cheque was given by the petitioner as security of borrowed amount of Rs. 1,00,000/-, but the respondent has misused the blank cheques and filled the amount and date and got dishonoured the same, therefore the complaint is not maintainable and the respondent is not entitled to get 20% of cheque amount. Vide order dated 26.02.2024 the learned trial 3 Court has directed the petitioner to pay 20% of cheque amount i.e. Rs. 1,90,000/- to the respondent. Being aggrieved by the order dated 26.02.2024 the petitioner preferred a revision before the learned 14th Additional Sessions Judge, Raipur and vide impugned order dated 05.09.2024 the learned Revisional Court has rejected the revision. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that while passing of order dated 26/02/2024 learned trial Court has relied upon the judgment passed by this court in CrMP No. 562/2021 ‘Rajesh Soni vs. Mukesh Verma’ holding that the provisions of Section 143(A) of NI Act is mandatory in nature. He further submits that the learned trial Court has not appreciate that in the legal notice the borrowed amount of Rs.47,50,000/- has been mentioned by the respondent, whereas in the complaint case, the borrowed amount has been mentioned as Rs. 37,50,000/-. He also submits that the trial Court has failed to appreciated in the agreement, the complainant three cheques are mentioned bearing cheque No. 888597, 888598 & 888599, whereas the complaint has been filed only in respect of cheque No. 888598 for the amount of Rs.9,50,000/-, but the respondent has misused the blank cheques and filled the amount and date and got dishonored the same, therefore, the complaint is not maintainable. 5. Learned counsel for the respondent contended that learned trial court as well as revisional Court has rightly passed the order under Section 143(A) of N.I. Act. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record with utmost circumspection. 7. Learned trial Court has passed the order under Section 143(A) of N.I. 4 Act and awarded 20% compensation in favour of the respondent against the petitioner. Petitioner has filed revision against the order of the learned First Class Judicial Magistrate and the revisional Court has dismissed the revision. 8. On perusal of the order passed by the trial Court, I have found that there is no reason given by the trial Court to grant interim compensation under Section 143(A) of NI Act. Section 143(A) of the N.I. Act reads as under :- [143A. Power to direct interim compensation.—(1) Notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, the Court trying an offence under section 138 may order the drawer of the cheque to pay interim compensation to the complainant— (a) in a summary trial or a summons case, where he pleads not guilty to the accusation made in the complaint; and (b) in any other case, upon framing of charge. (2) The interim compensation under sub-section (1) shall not exceed twenty per cent. of the amount of the cheque. (3) The interim compensation shall be paid within sixty days from the date of the order under sub-section (1), or within such further period not exceeding thirty days as may be directed by the Court on sufficient cause being shown by the drawer of the cheque. (4) If the drawer of the cheque is acquitted, the Court shall direct the complainant to repay to the drawer the amount of interim compensation, with interest at the bank rate as published by the Reserve Bank of India, prevalent at the beginning of the relevant financial year, within sixty days from the date of the order, or within such further period not exceeding thirty days as 5 may be directed by the Court on sufficient cause being shown by the complainant. (5) The interim compensation payable under this section may be recovered as if it were a fine under section 421 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974). (6) The amount of fine imposed under section 138 or the amount of compensation awarded under section 357 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), shall be reduced by the amount paid or recovered as interim compensation under this section.] 9. As held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of G.J. Raja Vs. Tejraj Surana, reported in (2019) 19 SCC 469 and this Court in the matter of ‘Rajesh Soni vs. Mukesh Verma’ CrMP No. 562/2021. Section 143(A) is not a mandatory and it is directive in nature. The interim compensation shall be paid with assigning reasoned order but the trial Court has not passed any reason to dismiss the revision filed by the petitioner. 10. In view of above, this CRMP is allowed and set-aside the order of revisional Court as well as trial Court. 11. The respondent is at liberty to file an application under Section 143(A) of the N.I. Act and the learned trial Court is directed to decide the application on its own merits after giving opportunity of hearing to both the parties with reasoned order. Sd/-- (Arvind Kumar Verma) JUDGE Kamde