1 2025:CGHC:11138 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRMP No. 828 of 2025 1 - Smt. Madduri Indira Rao Aged 56 Years, (Now 61 Years) D/o Late Shri M. Balbhadra Rao, R/o Near District And Session Court, Civil Line, Raipur Chhattisgarh. ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - Smt. Namita Sharma W/o Shri Rajshekhar Sharma Aged About 33 Years R/o Shri Rashindu Sandhagi, (Police Wale) Near Trilokdham (Trimurti) Mandir, Beside Rajendra Kirana Store, Mathpurena, Raipur, Tahsil And District Raipur Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Mr. J.K. Gupta, Advocate For Respondent(s) : Hon’ble Shri Justice Arvind Kumar Verma, Judge Order on Board 06/03/2025 1. The present petition is filed by the petitioner under Section 528 of BNSS, 2023 against the order dated 29.11.2024 wherein the learned Court below allowed the application under Section 143-A of N.I. Act and directed the petitioner to deposit 10% of the loan 2 amount of Rs. 4,00,00/-, i.e. Rs. 40,000/-. 2. Brief facts of the case is that the respondent is a permanent resident of address mentioned in the cause title and due to good relation between the petitioner and respondent, the petitioner demanded Rs. 4,00,000/- from the respondent as a loan and promised to return the said amount the petitioner gave his Bank of Maharashtra’s Cheque bearing no. 82117 dated 20.08.2019. The respondent presented the said liability cheque in his account for withdrawal of money, the said cheque was dishonored by the bank on 31.08.2019 with the remark “funds insufficient” and was returned to the respondent. The respondent informed the petitioner about the dishonour of the cheque given by him through mobile phone and petitioner assured the respondent that he will arrange the money and will give it to the respondent. But the petitioner has neither arranged the money nor paid it. Rather, he has deliberately given the cheque to the respondent knowing that there is no money in his account and caused mental panic and committed the crime of cheating. Thereafter, the respondent filed case before the Learned Court below under Section 138 of N.I. Act on 05.10.2019. After service of notice petitioner appeared and denied the averment in the application before the learned Court below. Vide order dated 29.11.2024 the learned Court below allowed the application under Section 143-A of N.I. Act and directed the petitioner to deposit 10% of the loan amount Rs. 4,00,000/- i.e. Rs. 40,000/-. 3 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the learned Trial Court has erred in passing the impugned order against the petitioner is illegal, erroneous and contrary to law. As per amended provision of Section 143A of the Act, 1881, grant of interim compensation is not mandatory and it is discretionary, therefore, it is not necessary in every case to grant 20% of cheque amount as interim compensation. He relied on the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Rakesh Ranjan Shrivastava Vs. Jharkhand and Other No. CRA No. 741/2024. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the record with utmost circumspection. 5. Perusal of record shows that the petitioner demanded Rs. 4,00,000/- from the respondent as a loan and promised to return the said amount. The petitioner gave his Bank of Maharashtra’s Cheque bearing no. 82117 dated 20.08.2019. The respondent presented the said liability cheque in his account for withdrawal of money, the said cheque was dishonored by the bank on 31.08.2019 with the remark “funds insufficient” and was returned to the respondent. The respondent then filed a case before the learned Court below under Section 138 of N.I. Act on 05.10.2019. Vide order dated 29.11.2024 the learned Court below allowed the application filed by the respondent herein under Section 143A of N.I. Act for grant of interim compensation and directed the petitioner herein to deposit 10% of the loan amount of Rs. 4,00,000/- i.e, Rs. 40,000/-. 4 6. The learned JMFC has held that keeping in mind all the facts and circumstances of the case, the application submitted by the complainant under Section 143-A is found to be appropriate to allow the said application. Therefore, it is ordered that the non- applicant shall deposit 10% of the loan amount. 7. It is pertinent to mention here that learned JMFC has not assigned any reason for allowing the application for grant of interim compensation. 8. Hon’ble Supreme Court in Rakesh Ranjan Shrivastava Vs. Jharkhand and Other (supra) has laid down the broad parameters for exercising jurisdiction under Section 143-A of N.I. Act, 1881. The same are as under: (a) 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. (b) A direction to pay interim compensation can be issued, only if the complainant makes out a prima facie case. (c) If the defence of the accused is found to be prima facie plausible, the Court may exercise discretion in refusing to grant interim compensation. (d) 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 5 accused and the complainant, etc. (e) 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. 9. In the case in hand, the learned JMFC has held that the non- applicant has not shown any financial distress and therefore allowed the application for grant of interim compensation and awarded 10% of the loan amount to be paid by the non-applicant. It is crystal clear that order passed by the learned JMFC is in violation of the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Rakesh Ranjan Shrivastava Vs. Jharkhand and Other (supra). 10. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, contentions of the counsel and perusing the record, this Court is of the considered opinion that the order dated 29.11.2024 passed by the learned JMFC is in violation of the aforesaid law laid down and is perverse which deserves to be and is hereby set aside. The matter is remanded back to the learned JMFC, Raipur (C.G.) and it is directed that the learned JMFC shall consider the case afresh and pass the order accordingly after giving an opportunity of hearing to the parties. 11. Accordingly, the present petition is allowed. Sd/- (Arvind Kumar Verma) JUDGE Madhurima