- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:28958 CRL.P No. 4303 of 2019 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 15TH DAY OF JUNE, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI V HOSMANI CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 4303 OF 2019 BETWEEN: MR. Y R VIJAYKUMAR AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, S/O RAMRAO PROPRIETOR OF PRAJWAL ENTERPRISES #912, 3RD CROSS, E & F BLOCK, AGNI HAMSA ROAD, KUVEMPUNAGAR, NEAR TO KUVEMPUNAGARA COMPLEX, MYSORE - 570 023. ALSO AT Y.R.VIJAYKUMAR S/O RAMRAO #878, 17TH CROSS, 9TH 'B' MAIN ROAD, ISRO LAYOUT, BANGALORE - 560 078. …PETITIONER (BY Smt. H.M.POORNIMA, ADVOCATE) AND: MR. T P SHIVAPRAKASH S/O S.PRABHUSWAMY AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS, R/AT NO.231, 9TH CROSS, ISRO LAYOUT, KEB ROAD, VITTALNAGARA BANGALORE - 560 078. …RESPONDENT [BY SRI PRADEEP H S., ADVOCATE (AB)] Digitally signed by ANUSHA V Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:28958 CRL.P No. 4303 of 2019 THIS CRL.P IS FILED U/S.482 CR.P.C PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 08.04.2019 PASSED BY THE HON'BLE COURT OF THE XXII A.C.M.M., IN C.C.NO.29508/2018. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSSION, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI V HOSMANI ORAL ORDER Challenging order dated 08.04.2019 passed by XXII ACMM in CC no.29508/2018 on an application filed under Section 143A of Negotiable Instruments Act (NI Act), this petition is filed. 2. Learned counsel for petitioner submitted that petitioner is accused in a private complaint filed by respondent in CC no. 29508/2018 alleging commission of offence under Section 138 of NI Act by petitioner. It was submitted that after recording plea wherein petitioner denied charges and sought to be tried, respondent-complainant had filed an application under Section 143A as per Annexure-C for interim compensation. Though petitioner had opposed application learned trial Judge allowed application and directed petitioner to deposit 10% of cheque - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:28958 CRL.P No. 4303 of 2019 amount as interim compensation. Said order was contrary to law and therefore sought for allowing petition. 3. There is no representation for respondent. 4. Heard learned counsel and perused impugned order. 5. At outset, it is seen that in proceedings initiated by respondent-complainant against petitioner for offence punishable under Section 138 of NI Act, an application was filed by respondent-complainant under Section 143A for interim compensation. Under impugned order it is allowed. Only reason assigned is that Court has discretionary power to direct accused to deposit upto 20% of cheque amount as interim compensation and in facts and circumstances of case, it was appropriate to direct accused to deposit 10% of cheque amount. Impugned order militates against decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Rakesh Ranjan Shrivastava v. State of Jharkhand and another reported in (2024) 4 SCC 419, wherein manner of exercise of discretion under Section 148A has been explained, considerations to be taken into account and reasons to be assigned. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:28958 CRL.P No. 4303 of 2019 6. Since order does not confirm to said ratio, petition is allowed, impugned order is set aside. Application is relegated to trial Court to pass orders afresh in accordance with law. Sd/- (RAVI V HOSMANI) JUDGE YKL List No.: 1 Sl No.: 27