Pawan Bhasin vs State of U. P. - 2023 Supreme(SC) 667

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2023 Supreme(SC) 667

S. RAVINDRA BHAT, ARAVIND KUMAR
Pawan Bhasin – Appellant
Versus
State of U. P. – Respondent

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioners: Siddharth Dave, Prabhat Kumar, Karan Dang, Pallavi Sharma, Aakriti Priya, Siddharth Mittal.
For the Respondents: Sarvesh Singh Baghel, Shubhali Pathak, Shantanu Singh, Devashish Bharuka, Vinit Trehan, Aditya Trehan.

Judgement Key Points

Based on the provided legal document, it appears to be a complete judgment or order issued by the Supreme Court of India concerning a specific case involving the dishonor of a cheque and the application of Section 143A of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. The document includes the facts of the case, legal arguments, interpretation of relevant statutory provisions, and the court's decision to quash the order of the trial court due to procedural irregularities.

There is no indication within the text that it is an excerpt or part of a larger document; it seems to be the entire decision or order related to this case. Therefore, it can be reasonably concluded that this is the whole document.

ORDER :

1. Leave granted.

2. The question which appellant urges is regarding tenability of the trial court’s order of 24.05.2022 whereby he was directed to deposit 10% of the amount of a dishonored cheque under Section 143A of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. The appellant argues that the order requiring such deposit was made by the Magistrate at a stage prior to when notice under Section 251 was sent to the accused petitioner.

3. The learned senior counsel Mr. Siddharth Dave relied upon the text of Section 143A which reads as follows:

“Section 143A: Power to direct interim compensation.

143A. (1) Notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, the Court trying an offence under section 138 may order the drawer of the cheque to pay interim compensation to the complainant:

(a) in a summary trial or a summons case, where he pleads not guilty to the accusation made in the complaint.

(b) in any other case, upon framing of charge.

(2) The interim compensation under sub-section (1) shall not exceed twenty per cent. of the amount of the cheque.

(3) The interim compensation shall be paid within sixty days from the date of the order under sub-section (1), or within

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2023 Supreme(SC) 667

S. RAVINDRA BHAT, ARAVIND KUMARPawan Bhasin – AppellantVersusState of U. P. – Respondent

S. RAVINDRA BHAT, ARAVIND KUMAR
Pawan Bhasin – Appellant
Versus
State of U. P. – Respondent