1 2026:CGHC:6256 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRMP No. 113 of 2026 Sunil Soni S/o Shri Rajkumar Soni Aged About 45 Years Occupation - Advocacy, R/o Gali No. 2, Katora Talab, Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.) ... Petitioner versus 1. Dev Narayan Dewangan S/o Shri Dhaneshwar Dewangan Aged About 42 Years R/o Navrang Chowk, Santoshi Nagar, Boriyakhurd, Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.). 2 - The State of Chhattisgarh through the District Collector, Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.) ... Respondents For the petitioner : Ms. Ankita Goswami, Advocate For the State/R-2 : Mr. Aman Tamboli, Panel Lawyer (Hon’ble Shri Justice Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal) Order on Board 04/02/2026 1. This revision has been filed u/s 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 against the order dated 25.09.2025 passed by the learned Sixth Additional Sessions Judge, Raipur, in Criminal Revision No.138/2025 whereby the revision filed by the petitioner has been rejected. 2. The complainant/petitioner had filed the application u/s 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act against respondent no.1 stating that the ALLENA ANNAJEE RAO Digitally signed by ALLENA ANNAJEE RAO Date: 2026.02.10 16:49:13 +0530 2 petitioner had given him Rs.7 lakhs on different dates as a credit for his business and had executed the agreement on 09.04.2024 regarding refund of the amount within a period of four months, but when the said amount was not refunded by respondent no.1, he gave the petitioner two Post Dated Cheques amounting to Rs.4 lakhs and Rs.3 lakhs for clearance of debt. On presentation of the said cheques in the Bank the same were dishonoured due to insufficiency of funds in the account of respondent no.1. 3. Petitioner filed complaint case before the JMFC, Raipur and during the pendency of the said complaint case, he filed application u/s 143A of the Negotiable Instrument Act and sought 20% of the cheque amount as interim compensation, but the learned trial Court vide order dated 25.03.2025, rejected the application holding that the provision u/s 143(A) of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 is not mandatory. Against the said order, the petitioner preferred Criminal Revision No. 138/2025 which was dismissed by the learned Revisional Court holding that there is no illegality or incorrectness in the order passed by the trial Court. Hence, this petition. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the provision u/s 143A of the N.I. Act, 1881 clearly provides for granting interim compensation of 20% of the entire cheque amount and the revisional court as also the trial court have not properly looked into the provisions envisaged in Section 143A of the N.I. Act and rejected the application filed by the petitioner by impugned orders which cannot be allowed to sustain. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and have also perused the material placed on record. 6. A perusal of the material placed on record shows that a complaint case u/s 138 of N.I. Act was registered against accused/ respondent no.1 before the trial Court and on 02.12.2024 when the particulars of the 3 offence were narrated before the trial Court, the accused denied the offence. The trial Court has rejected the application filed by the complainant u/s 143A of the Negotiable Instruments Act on the ground that the said provision is not mandatory and many facts in the case are yet to be adjudicated. 7. The revisional Court observed that the accused denied the crime at the time of narration of particulars of the offence and he was tenant of the complainant and due to financial problem, he was living in a rented house and it is also necessary to consider the defence of accused qua the merits of the case. Thus being not found any infirmity or illegality in the trial Court order, the revisional court rejected the petitioner’s revision. 8. The Supreme Court in Rakesh Ranjan Shrivastava v. State of Jharkhand (2024) 4 SCC 419 clarified that the power to grant up to 20% interim compensation under Section 143A of the Negotiable Instruments Act is discretionary, not mandatory. Courts must evaluate the prima facie case, the accused's defense, and provide reasons rather than applying it automatically, ensuring fairness under Article 14 of the Constitution of India. 9. In view of the above position of law and the facts situation of the present case, I do not find any merit in this petition warranting interference in the reasoned order of the revisional Court as well as the order of the trial Court. 10. Accordingly, this petition has no merits and is dismissed at the admission stage itself. Sd/- (Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal) Judge Rao