High CourtsSingle Bench

Om Prakash Aggarwal vs State And Ors

Rajasthan High Court · Decided on 26 February 2020 · Citation: (2020) 02 RAJ CK 0599

HON’BLE JUDGES
Sandeep Mehta, J
ACTS & SECTIONS REFERRED
Code Of Criminal Procedure, 1973 — Section 482 · Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 — Section 143A
RESULT
Allowed
CASE NUMBER
Criminal Misc(Pet.) No. 6497 Of 2019
Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

No AI summary yet

Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.

Judgment

17 paragraphs · 336 words

Heard learned counsel for the parties. Perused the material available on record.

By way of this misc. petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C., the petitioner herein has approached this Court for assailing the order dated 16.04.2019

passed by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Nohar, District Hanumangarh in Criminal Original Case No.953/2017 whereby, the

petitioner was directed to deposit 20% of the cheque amount in terms of the amended Section 143A of the N.I. Act and so also the order dated

04.11.2019 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge No.2, Hanumangarh affirming the said order of the trial court in Revision No.99/2019.

I have heard and considered the submissions advanced at Bar and have gone through the material available on record.

It is an admitted position that the complaint came to be filed against the petitioner on 13.07.2017. Section 143A was introduced in the N.I. Act on

01.09.2018. Hon’ble the Supreme Court in the case of G.J. Raja vs. Tejraj Surana reported in AIR 2019 SC 3817, has held that the applicability of

Section 143A of the N.I. Act is prospective in nature and would be confined to cases where the offences were committed after the introduction of the

provision. Thus, in the case at hand where complaint was filed before introduction of Section 143A of the N.I. Act, the accused cannot be required to

pay interim compensation by virtue of the provision which was not in existence at the time of commission of the offence. Thus, the impugned orders

amount to gross abuse of process of law.

Accordingly, the impugned order dated 04.11.2019 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge No.2, Hanumangarh in Revision No.99/2019 is

quashed and set aside in entirety and the impugned order dated 16.04.2019 passed by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Nohar, District

Hanumangarh in Criminal Original Case No.953/2017 is quashed to the extent, the petitioner was directed to deposit 20% of the cheque amount in the

court.

The misc. petition is allowed in these terms. Stay application is disposed of.