2021 (9) TMI 1402 - HC - Indian Laws

Dishonor of Cheque - direction to pay interim compensation under section 143 of the Negotiable Instruments Act - HELD THAT - In this case, at the time of questioning, the trial court passed the interim order suo motu. The reasons stated by the trial court is not proper and it used the Discretionary Power without proper manner. Further, the respondent/de-facto complainant has not filed any petition for interim compensation. Hence, it is necessary to interfere into the findings of the trial court. The impugned docket order, dated 15.04.2021 passed by the Judicial Magistrate Fast Track Court, Pattukkottai, is set aside - this Criminal Revision is allowed.

Summary

Issues:
Challenge to interim compensation order under section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act.

Analysis:
The judgment involves a Criminal Revision filed against a docket order passed by the Judicial Magistrate Fast Track Court, Pattukottai, in a case related to recovery of money under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The respondent had filed a private complaint against the petitioner, which led to the interim order for payment of Rs.5,00,000 as compensation. The petitioner challenged this order, arguing that the complainant did not seek such compensation in the complaint, making the order a willful exercise of discretionary power without proper reasons. The petitioner cited a previous ruling to support the argument that the exercise of discretionary power under section 143 of the Act must be justified with reasons. The court noted that the trial court's reasons for the interim order were not proper, and since the complainant did not file a petition for interim compensation, it was necessary to interfere with the trial court's decision.

The petitioner's counsel contended that the trial court's order was arbitrary and illegal due to the lack of proper reasons supporting the interim compensation under section 143 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The counsel referred to a previous ruling that provided illustrative reasons justifying the exercise of discretionary power under the Act. The court agreed with the petitioner's argument, stating that the trial court used discretionary power without proper justification and that the complainant did not file a petition for interim compensation. Consequently, the court allowed the Criminal Revision, setting aside the docket order and directing the trial court to dispose of the case purely on merits and in accordance with the law within three months from the date of the order.

In conclusion, the High Court allowed the Criminal Revision, overturning the interim compensation order passed by the trial court. The court directed the trial court to proceed with the case purely on its merits and in compliance with the law within a specified timeframe.