Vikram Kumar vs State Of Jharkhand `

Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi

Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, learned counsel appearing for the State and learned counsel appearing for the respondent No. 2.

Prayer in this writ petition is made for quashing of the order dated 19.04.2024, passed by the learned Judicial Commissioner, Ranchi, in Criminal Revision No. 125 of 2024, whereby the order dated 29.02.2024, passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Ranchi, in complaint Case No. 3004 of 2021, has been affirmed, by which, the learned Magistrate has been pleased to direct the petitioner to pay Rs. 20,00,000/- (20% of the cheque amount) to the respondent No. 2 as interim compensation within 60 days from the date of order in terms of Section 143(A) of the Negotiable Instrument Act, 1881 [N.I. Act], now the case is pending before the learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Ranchi.

Mr.  Gautam  Kumar,  learned counsel  appearing for the petitioner  submits  that  an  agreement  was  entered  into  between  the petitioner and the respondent No. 2 for making a movie. He submits that a cheque of Rs. 50,00,000/- was given by the petitioner to the respondent No. 2, which was dishonoured and for that a complaint case was filed under the NI Act. He submits that the trial is still pending and on the petition, filed by the respondent No. 2, the learned court has been pleased to direct the petitioner by order dated 29.02.2024 to pay Rs. 20,00,000/- (20% of the cheque amount) to the respondent No. 2 as interim compensation within 60 days from the date of order in terms of Section  143(A)  of  the  N.I. Act,  which  was  challenged  before  the learned revisional court, wherein the learned revisional court has affirmed that order. He further submits that both the orders are not passed under the parameters of Section 143(A) of the NI Act and the same have been passed without making any proper inquiry and without giving any reason, both the orders have been passed. He submits that in the mechanical way, Section 143(A) of the NI Act cannot be applied and to buttress his argument, he relied in the case of Rakesh Ranjan Shrivastava Versus State of Jharkhand & Anr., reported in 2024 SCC OnLine SC 309, wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court in para-22, held as follows:-

“22. Subject to what is held earlier, the main conclusions can be summarised as follows:-

a. The exercise of power under sub-section (1) of Section 143A is discretionary. The provision is directory and not mandatory. The word “may” used in the provision cannot be construed as “shall.”

b. While deciding the prayer made under Section 143A, the Court must record brief reasons  indicating  consideration  of  all relevant factors.

c. The broad parameters for exercising the discretion under Section 143A are as follows:

i.  The  Court  will  have  to  prima  facie evaluate the merits of the case made out by the complainant and the merits of the defence  pleaded  by  the  accused  in  the reply  to  the  application.  The  financial distress  of  the  accused  can  also  be  a consideration.

ii. A direction to pay interim compensation can be issued, only if the complainant makes out a prima facie case.

iii. If the defence of the accused is found to be prima facie plausible, the Court may exercise discretion in refusing to grant interim compensation.

iv. If the Court concludes that a case is made out to grant interim compensation, it will also have to apply its mind to the quantum of interim compensation to be granted. While doing so, the Court will have to consider several factors such as the nature of the transaction, the relationship, if any, between the accused and the complainant, etc. v. There could be several other relevant factors in the peculiar facts of a given case, which cannot be exhaustively stated. The parameters stated above are not exhaustive.”

Relying on the above judgment, he submits that in absence of the disclosure of the prima facie reasons, the said orders have been passed, in view of that, these orders may kindly be quashed.

Learned counsel appearing for the respondent-State submits that on the petition of the respondent No. 2, the learned courts have passed the orders.

Learned counsel appearing for the respondent No. 2 has opposed the prayer on the ground that the both the learned courts have rightly passed the orders under Section 143(A) of the NI Act as the provisions are there.

In view of the above and looking into the orders of the learned first court as well as learned revisional court, it transpires that only on the ground that the case is summary in nature and accusation has been explained and the accused has not pleaded guilty and in light of Section 143(A) of the NI Act, these orders have been passed. Further in a mechanical way, the orders under Section 143(A) of the NI Act is not admissible and the learned court will have to prima facie evaluate the merits of the case made out by the complainant, then pass such orders and this aspect of the matter has been considered by the Hon’ble Supreme court in the case of Rakesh Ranjan Shrivastava (Supra), as relied by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner.

As such, the impugned orders dated 19.04.2024, passed by the learned Judicial Commissioner, Ranchi, in Criminal Revision No. 125 of 2024 and the order dated 29.02.2024, passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Ranchi, in complaint Case No. 3004 of 2021, are hereby, set aside.

The application filed by the respondent No. 2 is restored, on which, further hearing will be made by the learned trial court and the learned court will pass an appropriate order in light of the observations made hereinabove after hearing both the sides.

With the above terms, this petition is disposed of.