1 2025:CGHC:50056 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRMP No. 3061 of 2025 1 - Govind Ram Sahu S/o R. L. Sahu, Aged About 42 Years, R/o Village Housing Board Colony, Semipali, House No. 89, Post - Bankimongra, Police Station- Darri, Tahsil- Darri, District Korba C.G. ... Petitioner versus 1 - Jyoti Prakash Chandra S/o Late Bhagwat Prasad, Aged About 53 Years, R/o Village- Indira Nagar, Jamnipali, Police Station And Tahsil- Darri, District Korba C.G. ... Respondent (Cause title taken from Case Information System) For Petitioner : Ms. Ankita Goswami, Advocate. Hon’ble Shri Justice Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, J. Order on Board 08-10-2025 1. The present Criminal Misc. Petition has been filed under Section 528 of the Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 against the order dated 11-08-2025 passed by the Third Additional Sessions Judge, Katghora, District Korba (C.G.) in Criminal Revision No.10/2025 whereby the criminal revision filed by the petitioner has been dismissed. 2. The brief facts of the case are that, the petitioner is accused in the Complaint Case No.245/2022 pending before the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class Kaghora, District Korba for the offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (in short ‘the N.I. Act’). During pendency of the said complaint case the complainant/respondent filed an application under Section 143A of the N.I. Act for grant of interim compensation. The said application filed by the respondent was partly allowed on 05-10-2024 Digitally signed by MOHAMMED AADIL KHAN Date: 2025.10.08 20:22:07 +0530 2 and the learned trial Court has ordered to deposit 10% of the amount of cheque within 15 days before the C.C.D. of the learned trial Court. The said order dated 05-10-2024 was challenged by the accused/petitioner before the learned Third Additional Sessions Judge, Katghora, District Korba in Criminal Revision No.10/2025 which has been dismissed vide order dated 11-08-2025 and the same is under challenge in the present petition. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner/accused would submit that the petitioner/accused is denying the delivery of cheque in favour of the complainant in discharge of any legally enforceable debt and when the possession of the said cheque with the complainant itself is disputed, no order can be passed for deposition of the interim compensation by the learned trial Court. She would further submit that the petitioner/accused is not in position and financial condition to deposit 10% of the amount of cheque which comes to Rs.1,00,000/-. Therefore, the impugned orders may be set aside. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the documents annexed with the petition. 5. The learned trial Court in a complaint filed by the complainant/respondent, passed the order on 05-10-2024 while invoking the provisions of Section 143A of the N.I. Act directing the accused to deposit the 10% of the amount of cheque within 15 days before the C.C.D. of the trial Court. Section 143A of the N.I. Act, 1881 provides that the trial Court has power to direct interim compensation to be paid by the accused, which reads as under:- “143A. Power to direct interim compensation.─(1) Notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), 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. 3 (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 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.” 6. During pendency of the complaint case the learned trial Court has ample power to direct deposition by the accused and the same has been ordered in which no illegality or infirmity could be pointed out by the petitioner/accused. Here, the discretion has been exercised by the learned trial Court as provided under Section 143A of the N.I. Act and such discretion has also been approved by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Rakesh Ranjan Shrivastava Vs State of Jharkhand and another, (2024) 4 SCC 419. Therefore, this Court does not find any illegality or perversity in the orders impugned passed by the learned trial Court as well as the learned appellate Court. In the result, the present petition fails and is hereby dismissed. Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) Judge Aadil