1 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRMP No. 3022 of 2025 1 - Neeraj Waretwar @ Neeraj Varetwar S/o Shri Dinkar Rao Waretwar Aged About 46 Years R/o Adarsh Nagar, Durg, Tehsil And Distt. Durg, Chhattisgarh. ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - Arvind Jain S/o Late Shri Ashok Jain Aged About 50 Years R/o In Front Of Ganpati Industries, Block No. 31, House No. 15, Purana Ganjpara, Durg, Tehsil And Distt. Durg, Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Aman Tamboli, Advocate Hon’ble Shri Justice Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, J Order on Board 08.10.2025 1. The present is a petition under Section 528 of Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (in short “BNSS, 2023”) filed by the petitioner against the order dated 08.08.2025 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Durg in MJC Criminal No. 988/2025 whereby the application filed by the petitioner for staying the recovery of Rs. 1 Lakh which was deposited by the accused in the earlier round of litigation has been dismissed. SAGRIKA AGRAWAL Digitally signed by SAGRIKA AGRAWAL Date: 2025.10.09 10:18:17 +0530 2 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner has earlier prosecuted complaint case under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (in short “NI Act”) against the accused in RCC No. 104/2018 which was decided by the learned trial Court vide judgment dated 23.11.2023 by which the accused was convicted for the offence under Section 138 of N.I. Act and sentenced for S.I. for two years with compensation of Rs. 5 Lakhs. In default of payment of compensation further S.I. for six months. The judgment dated 23.11.2023 was challenged by the accused before the learned 8th Additional Sessions Judge, Durg in Criminal Appeal No. 328/2023 which was allowed by the learned Appellate Court vide its judgment dated 28.03.2025 and judgment of conviction and sentence passed by learned trial Court was set aside. However, a liberty was granted to the complainant that he may again file his complaint afresh along with the application under Section 142 (1)(b) of N.I. Act. He would further submit that after passing of the judgment by the learned trail Court, the accused had deposited Rs. 1 Lakh before the learned trial Court against the 20 % amount of the awarded compensation. As per the liberty given by the learned Appellate Court, the petitioner had filed the subsequent complaint along with the application under Section 142 (1) (b) of the N.I. Act before the learned trial Court which is pending. In the meantime the accused had filed an application for refund of his deposited amount of Rs. 1 Lakh before the learned trial Court on the ground that the judgment of conviction and sentence under which he has deposited the amount of Rs. 1 Lakh is set aside by the learned Appellate Court and therefore, his amount may be returned back. In the recovery proceeding, the petitioner has filed his reply in which he 3 also prayed for staying the recovery of Rs. 1 Lakh, however, after hearing the parties, the learned trial Court has rejected the prayer made by the petitioner and allowed the application of the accused and directed to return the amount of Rs. 1 Lakh to the accused against which the present petition has been filed. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner would further submit that there is a provision under Section 143 A of the N.I. Act with respect to grant of interim compensation upto the 20 % amount of cheque. The amount which has been earlier deposited by the accused may be considered against the said amount which is in possession of the petitioner and till the decision of the subsequent complaint filed by the petitioner, the recovery of Rs. 1 Lakh may be stayed. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the document annexed with the petition. 5. From perusal of the document annexed with the petitioner, it transpires that, although, the accused had earlier convicted by the learned trial Court, however, he has been acquitted by the learned Appellate Court and liberty was granted to the complainant to file his complaint afresh along with the application under Section 142 (1)(b) of N.I. Act and in compliance thereof, the petitioner has filed another complaint before the learned trial Court which is pending for its consideration. The amount of Rs. 1 Lakh for which the parties are claiming, is deposited by the accused against the earlier judgment passed by learned trial Court by which he was convicted and since, the judgment of conviction and award of compensation has been set aside by the learned Appellate Court, the accused is entitled for refund of the said amount as there is no order at present against him. Admittedly, there is no 4 application filed by the petitioner or there is no order with respect to grant of interim compensation in the subsequent complaint filed by the complainant, the complainant cannot claim for adjustment of the said amount of Rs. 1 Lakh as interim compensation towards the total amount of cheque without there being any order passed by the learned trial Court in the subsequent complaint filed by the petitioner. 6. The learned trial Court, in the recovery proceeding initiated by the accused, has considered that since the judgment of conviction and order of compensation has been set aside by the learned Appellate Court, the accused is entitled for refund of his amount, which is, in the opinion of this Court is correctly considered by the learned trial Court. 7. After perusal of the entire documents annexed with the petition, I do not find any perversity or illegality which warrants interference in the order impugned in the present petition. Accordingly, the present petition is dismissed. Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) Judge sagrika