35-WP-3395-2025.doc IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.3395 OF 2025 Nuruddin Badruddin Ajani ...Petitioner Versus Fayyaz Amirali Shroff & Anr. ...Respondents —————— Mr. Siddhesh Borkar a/w Prachi Parte & Harsh Parte, for the Petitioner. Mr. Suraj Dessai Almeida, for Respondent No.1. Ms. M. R. Tidke, APP, for Respondent No.2-State. —————— Coram: Madhav J. Jamdar, J. Date: 16 September 2026 P.C.: 1. Heard Mr. Borkar, learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioner and Mr. Almeida, learned Counsel appearing for Respondent No.1. 2. In this Writ Petition, the relief sought is seeking quashing of Complaint being CC No.2723/SS/2021 and also the challenge is to the Order dated 13th February 2024 passed below Exhibit-23 in CC No. 2723/SS/2021 by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, 63th Court, Andheri, Mumbai, by which 20% of cheque amount has been directed to be deposited by exercising power under Section 143-A of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. 3. At the outset, Mr. Borkar, learned Counsel, states that he has instructions to withdraw the Writ Petition as far as relief of quashing of Arjun 1 ARJUN VITTHAL KUDHEKAR Digitally signed by ARJUN VITTHAL KUDHEKAR Date: 2026.09.17 12:47:18 +0530 35-WP-3395-2025.doc complaint filed under Section 138 of the NI Act and only to press relief seeking to challenge the Order dated 13th February 2024. 4. Mr. Borkar, learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioner, states that the impugned Order has been passed without taking into consideration various aspects and factors required to be taken into consideration while passing Order under Section 143-A of the NI Act as directed by the Supreme Court in the decision of Rakesh Ranjan Shrivastava v. The State Of Jharkhand 1. 5. Mr. Almeida, learned Counsel appearing for Respondent No.2 points out several aspects on merits. 6. The relevant directions issued by the Supreme Court are to be found in Paragraph Nos.22 to 24 of Rakesh Ranjan Shrivastava (supra), which read as under: “22. When the court deals with an application under Section 143-A of the NI Act, 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 under sub-section (1) of Section 143-A. The presumption under Section 139 of the NI Act, by itself, is no ground to direct the payment of interim compensation. The reason is that the presumption is rebuttable. The question of applying the presumption will arise at the trial. Only if the complainant makes out a prima facie case, a direction can be issued to pay interim compensation. At this stage, the fact that the accused is in financial distress can also be a consideration. 23. Even if the court concludes that a case is made out for grant of interim compensation, the court will have to apply its 1 (2024) 4 SCC 419 : 2024 SCC OnLine SC 309 Arjun 2 35-WP-3395-2025.doc mind to the quantum of interim compensation to be granted. Even at this stage, the court will have to consider various factors such as the nature of the transaction, the relationship, if any, between the accused and the complainant and the paying capacity of the accused. If the defence of the accused is found to be prima facie a plausible defence, the court may exercise discretion in refusing to grant interim compensation. 24. We may note that the factors required to be considered, which we have set out above, are not exhaustive. There could be several other factors in the facts of a given case, such as, the pendency of a civil suit, etc. While deciding the prayer made under Section 143-A, the Court must record brief reasons indicating consideration of all the relevant factors.” 7. Perusal of the impugned Order clearly shows that above aspects are not at all taken into consideration. 8. Thus, the impugned Order dated 13th February 2024 passed below Exhibit-23 in CC No. 2723/SS/2021 by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, 63th Court, Andheri, Mumbai, by which 20% of cheque amount has been directed to be deposited by exercising power under Section 143-A of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, is quashed and set aside and said application bearing Exhibit-23 in CC No.2723/SS/2021 is remanded back to the learned JMFC for deciding the same afresh after giving hearing opportunity to both the sides and in accordance with law by following the directions of the Supreme Court in Rakesh Ranjan Shrivastava (supra). 9. It is specifically noted that as the Writ Petition is withdrawn with respect to the relief regarding quashing, the Writ Petition concerning Arjun 3 35-WP-3395-2025.doc said reliefs stands dismissed as withdrawn. 10. The Writ Petition is accordingly disposed of in above terms. [Madhav J. Jamdar, J.] Arjun 4