1 2025:CGHC:12112 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR CRMP No. 398 of 2023 Sumit Kohli S/o Shri Kuldeep Singh Kohli Aged About 39 Years, Proprietor, Kohli Engineering And Power Management Private Limited Through, Shri Neelkanth Singh Thakur, Retired D.S.P. R/o-10, Jalashaya Marg, Choubey Colony Road Raipur, District- Raipur (C.G.) --- Petitioner(s) versus Sapna Dwivedi W/o Lt. Shri Shashikant Dwivedi, First Solar Proprietor, At Present Aged About - 57 Yrs, R/o G-12, Maruti Residency Amlidih, New Rajendra Nagar, P.S. Rajendra Nagar, Raipur Tahsil And District - Raipur (C.G.). --- Respondent(s) For Petitioner : Ms. Deepali Pandey, Advocate. For Respondent : Mr. Anand Mohan Tiwari, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Justice Arvind Kumar Verma Order on Board 11/03/2025 1. Challenge in this petition is to the order dated 31/12/2022 passed in Criminal Revision No.467/2022 by which, learned First Additional Session Judge, Raipur, Chhattisgarh has dismissed/rejected the revision preferred by the petitioner and confirmed/affirmed the order dated 22.09.2022 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Raipur, 2 (CG). 2. Relevant facts for disposal of the writ petition are that respondent/complainant had filed the criminal case stating that the petitioner had taken Rs.15,00,000/- from her, for which, he had given the cheque (bearing Cheque No.000085 dated 16/11/2019, Kotak Mahindra Bank, Branch - City Plaza) as a security. On 25/11/2019, the respondent/complainant submitted the said cheque in the Bank, but same was returned with the tip ‘Payment stop by drawer’. Respondent sent the legal notice to the petitioner through her advocate and, thereafter, filed the complaint case under Section 138 Negotiable Instrument Act, 1881 before JMFC, Raipur (C.G.). The petitioner/non- applicant denying the allegation of the respondent/applicant, the trial therefore commenced. The respondent/complainant submitted application under Section 143(A) of NI Act for grant of interim compensation of 20% to her on the ground of maintenance of herself and her daughter for medical and other expenses. The petitioner/non applicant submitted reply to the said application denying the allegations of the complaint. Vide order dated 22/9/2022, learned JMFC has allowed the application of complainant/respondent and directed the petitioner/non-applicant to deposit 10% of the amount i.e., Rs.1,50,000/- to the complainant / respondent within a period of 60 days. The petitioner/non-applicant has challenged the said order before the Session Court in Criminal Revision No.467/2022, however, learned First Additional Session Judge, Raipur, (CG) dismissed/rejected the revision of the petitioner-non-applicant and confirmed/affirmed the order of the JMFC dated 22.09.2022. Hence, this petition. 3 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the discretionary power vested with the trial Court in interim compensation must be supported by reason, but learned trial Court has not given any reason as to why it is directing the present petitioner/non-applicant to pay the interim compensation of 10% to the complainant/respondent. Learned Session Court also failed to see that the learned trial Court had not given any reason in its order dated 22.09.2022 and without application of mind has rejected/dismissed the revision of the petitioner. The grant of interim compensation to the complainant/respondent without valid reason would cause not only irreparable loss to the petitioner but also loss of faith on justice. Hence, it is prayed that impugned order be set aside. 4. Learned counsel for the respondent submits that impugned order passed by the learned Court below are in accordance with the law and, therefore, interference by this Court is not required. 5. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned order including the documents/material available on record. 6. For ready reference, Section 143(A) of the NI 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 4 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." 7. Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Rakesh Ranjan Shrivastava versus State of Jharkhand & Anr reported in (2024) 4 SCC 419 held that the exercise of power under Section 143-A NI Act to grant interim compensation is to be as per the guidelines below: “(I). The exercise of power under sub-section (1) of Section 143A is discretionary. The provision is directory and not mandatory. The word “may” used in the provision cannot be construed as “shall.” (ii). While deciding the prayer made under Section 143A, the Court must record brief reasons indicating consideration of all relevant factors. (iii). The broad parameters for exercising the discretion 5 under Section 143A are as follows: (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 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. 8. Considering facts of the case, pleadings made in the petition, submissions of counsel for the respective parties, particularly the provision of Section 143-A of NI Act and guidelines issued by Supreme Court in case of Rakesh Ranjan Shrivastava (supra), this Court is of the considered view that while passing the impugned order learned Court below did not following the guidelines issued in case of Rakesh Ranjan 6 Shrivastava (supra). 9. Accordingly, impugned order dated 22.09.2022 passed by the trial Court and affirmed/confirmed by the Session Court vide order dated 31.12.2022 are hereby set-aside. Matter is remanded back to the trial Court concerned for deciding the application of the petitioner filed under Section 143(A) of NI Act afresh and passed the reasoned/speaking order in accordance with law/guidelines issued in case of Rakesh Ranjan Shrivastava (supra) after affording opportunity of hearing to the parties. 10.In the result, the instant petition stands allowed to the extent indicated above. CC as per rules. Sd/- (Arvind Kumar Verma) Judge J/-