1 2026:CGHC:6343 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRMP No. 349 of 2026 Dukhiram Sarkar, S/o Late Shri Tarapad Sarkar, aged about 51 years, R/o Mana Camp, Bus Stand Road, P.S. Mana Camp, Tahsil and District Raipur, Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner versus Fatik Sarkar, S/o Late Shri Tarapad Sarkar, aged about 61 years, R/o Sarkar Kiraya Bhandar, Main Road Bus Stand Mana Camp, P.S. Mana Camp, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh ... Respondent For Petitioner : Mr. Virendra Kashyap, Advocate. For Respondent : Not noticed Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal Order on Board 04/02/ 2026 1. The instant petition has been filed under Section 528 of BNSS, 2023 against the order dated 27.11.2025 passed by learned 10th Additional Sessions Judge, Raipur, District- Raipur (C.G.) in CRR No.460/2024, arising out of order dated 14.10.2024 passed by learned JMFC District-Raipur (C.G.) in Complainant Case No.5871/2023. 2. Facts of the complaint case under Section 138 of the NI Act are that the petitioner/complainant and the SHUBHAM SINGH RAGHUVANSHI Digitally signed by SHUBHAM SINGH RAGHUVANSHI Date: 2026.02.05 16:48:14 +0530 2 respondent/accused are the real brothers and the Respondent borrowed Rs.40,00,000/- from the complainant and also issued a cheque in favour of the complainant. 3. It is further the case of prosecution that on 06.02.2022, a compromise has been executed between the parties and the deed mentions a meeting held to resolve disputes regarding mutual transactions, property division, and other issues, with conditions 1 to 6. As per the conditions, the accused has paid Rs. 2,00,000/- to the complainant, with Rs. 5,00,000/- remaining, given as security. Thereafter, the complainant presented the said cheque for clearance which was dishonored by the Bank against which the complainant filed the complaint case under Section 138 of the NI Act before the learned JMFC. 4. During pendency of the case, the complainant filed an application under Section 143-A of the NI Act for grant of 20% of the cheque amount from the Respondent as interim compaction which was dismissed by learned JMFC vide order dated 14.10.2024. Being aggrieved by the said order, the complainant filed a revision (CRR No.460/2024) and vide impugned order dated 27.11.2025, learned 10th Additional Sessions Judge has rejected the revision. Hence, this petition. 5. The petitioner's counsel argues that the 3 compromise/settlement dated 06.02.2022 is merely a handwritten paper and therefore lacks legal sanctity, credibility, and evidentiary value in the eyes of law. The payment of 20% interim compensation to the complainant is legally justified, and denial of such relief causes financial prejudice to the complainant. Both the Courts below have committed grave error in not appreciating the material facts and evidence on record and passed the erroneous orders, which are liable to be set-aside. 6. I have heard learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioner and perused the documents available on record. 7. Upon reviewing the order of the learned JMFC, as affirmed by the learned Sessions Judge, it appears that both Courts have rejected the complainant's application with reason. The provision of Section 143-A of the NI Act is not mandatory. At present, this Court does not see any illegality or perversity in the impugned order that warrants interference with it. 8. Accordingly, the instant petition is hereby dismissed at motion stage itself. Sd/- (Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal) Judge Shubham