9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2024 (6) TMI 702 - HC - Indian LawsDishonour of Cheque - seeking interim compensation u/s 143A of the NI Act - rebuttal of presumption - HELD THAT - The Court adjudicating upon a Complaint under Section 138 of the NI Act 'may' order the drawer of the cheque in question to pay any amount, not exceeding twenty per cent of the amount of the cheque, as interim compensation to the complainant in a summary trial or a summons case, where he pleads not guilty to the accusation made in the complaint or in any other case, upon the framing of charges. It is no longer res integra that the said power of the Court to direct the drawer to pay interim compensation under Section 143A of the NI Act, is a discretionary power, to be exercised judiciously after considering the facts and circumstances of each case and cannot be claimed as a right, mandating the Court to grant interim compensation to the complainant. In the present case, the petitioner alleges that he has given an amount totalling to Rs.20 lacs to the respondent for the purpose of securing a lease/license for a canteen at Sena Bhawan by the respondent and securing employment of the petitioner's children, son- in-law, friend of his daughter, and a friend of his son-in-law at the said canteen. The respondent is stated to be working as an official at Sena Bhawan. Therefore, prima facie, the consideration of the above payment does not appear to be lawful - That apart, there is no proof of such payment filed with the complaint. There is also no written agreement. All that the petitioner has to show are the cheques. The power under Section 143A of the NI Act being discretionary in nature, the order can be interfered with by this Court only if it is found to be perverse or so unreasonable so as to conclude that discretion could not have been exercised in the said manner. This Court is not sitting as a Court of Appeal against the Order passed by the learned Trial Court in exercise of its powers under Section 143A of the NI Act. There are no merit in the challenge of the petitioner to the Impugned Order - petition dismissed.
Issues Involved:
1. Early hearing of the petition. 2. Challenge to the Order dismissing the application u/s 143A of the NI Act. Summary: Early Hearing of the Petition: 1. The application for an early hearing of the petition was allowed, and the petition was taken up for hearing on the same day. Challenge to the Order Dismissing the Application u/s 143A of the NI Act: 2. The petition was filed u/s 482 of the Cr.P.C., challenging the Order dated 13.09.2022 passed by the Trial Court in Complaint Case No. 5351/2019 under Section 138 of the NI Act, which dismissed the application filed by the petitioner u/s 143A of the NI Act. 3. Factual Matrix: The petitioner alleged that the respondent induced him to invest Rs. 20 lacs for a canteen lease and employment opportunities, which did not materialize. The respondent issued two cheques that were dishonored due to 'Insufficient Funds'. A legal demand notice was sent, and upon non-payment, a complaint was filed. 4. The Trial Court issued summons and framed Notice u/s 251 of the Cr.P.C. against the respondent. The petitioner's application u/s 143A of the NI Act for interim compensation was dismissed by the Trial Court. 5. Submissions of the Petitioner: The petitioner argued that the Trial Court erred in not recognizing a strong prima facie case and misinterpreted the purpose of Section 143A of the NI Act. The petitioner also contended that the respondent had not denied his signatures on the cheques, invoking the presumption u/s 139 of the NI Act. 6. Analysis & Findings: The Court reiterated that the power u/s 143A of the NI Act is discretionary and must be exercised judiciously. The Supreme Court's judgment in Rakesh Ranjan Shrivastava v. State of Jharkhand & Anr. clarified that the presumption u/s 139 of the NI Act alone is not sufficient to direct interim compensation. 7. The Court noted that the petitioner failed to provide proof of the alleged payment and that the respondent's defense of issuing blank cheques for a smaller amount was plausible. The Court found no merit in the petitioner's claim of deliberate delay by the respondent, especially considering the Covid-19 pandemic and related medical issues. 8. The Court emphasized that it would not interfere with the Trial Court's discretionary order unless it was perverse or unreasonable. The petitioner's assertion that the trial was nearing completion also influenced the Court's decision not to interfere. 9. Conclusion: The petition challenging the Impugned Order was dismissed, with no orders as to costs.
|
