2022 (6) TMI 299 - HC - Indian Laws

Dishonor of Cheque - allegation of non-application of mind, as the order itself is incongruous - applicability of Section 143A of the Negotiable Instruments Act - HELD THAT - The application filed by the complainant came to be rejected by the learned Magistrate and the same is allowed by the Revisional Court. The mandate of the statute though is to award interim compensation of an amount of 20% to the maximum, it can varry from 0 to 20%. The said variance is not taken note of by the Revisional Court - the amount of 20% be reduced to 10% in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, on the entire cheque amount for a resolution of the lis before this Court. It is deemed appropriate to modify the order passed by the Revisional Court dated 25.10.2021 by modifying the amount that is payable by the petitioner in terms of 143A of the Negotiable Instruments Act to 10% of the instrument from 20% as ordered, which shall be deposited before the learned Magistrate by the petitioners, within four weeks from the date of receipt of the copy of this order and the complainant would be at liberty to withdraw the same in terms of the mandate of the statute - criminal petition disposed off.

Summary

Issues:
1. Application of Section 143A of the Negotiable Instruments Act.
2. Validity of the order passed by the Revisional Court.
3. Consideration of disputed amount in the order.
4. Modification of the compensation amount.
5. Co-operation for completion of proceedings.

Analysis:
1. The petitions questioned an order passed in Crl.R.P. No. 25030/2021 by the LXXIV Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru, concerning a transaction related to film production and dishonored cheques under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, invoking Section 200 of Cr.P.C.

2. The Revisional Court allowed the complainant's application under Section 143A of the Negotiable Instruments Act, seeking 20% compensation, setting aside the Magistrate's rejection due to lack of reasons. The accused challenged this order, alleging non-application of mind and incongruity, arguing that the disputed amount was not considered.

3. The Senior counsel contended that Rs. 33,50,000 out of the total Rs. 92,00,000 instrument amount had been paid, urging quashment and reconsideration. Conversely, the complainant's counsel argued that the corrected order removed incongruity and the disputed amount was subject to trial, seeking dismissal of the petitions.

4. The Judge noted the undisputed facts, highlighting the Revisional Court's failure to consider the variance in the statute allowing 0-20% compensation. Consequently, the Judge reduced the compensation to 10% of the instrument amount, emphasizing the need for a resolution.

5. Both counsels assured cooperation for the proceedings' conclusion, leading the Judge to modify the order, requiring the petitioners to deposit 10% compensation within four weeks. Non-cooperation would reinstate the 20% compensation. The Judge emphasized cooperation for the proceedings' timely completion, disposing of the criminal petitions accordingly.