Point of Law : Consequence of non-payment of interim compensation so awarded is penal, as proceedings can be initiated by the complainant under Sections 357 and 421 of the Cr.P.C. which are recoverable as fine paid under Section 421 of the Cr.P.C.

ORDER :

A strange transaction is brought before this Court in which the complainant claims to have lent to the accused a sum of rupees two crores by cash in two thousand rupees denomination and the cheque alleged to have issued by the accused is dishonoured. In respect of rupees two crores transaction in cash, the trial Court invoking Section 143A of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (‘the Act’ for short) grants interim compensation of Rupees forty lakhs to be paid by the accused to the complainant. The consequence of this order is what drives the accused to this Court seeking the following prayer:

“WHEREFORE, it is most humbly prayed, this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to:

1. Direct the Hon’ble Court of Principal District and Sessions Judge, Koppal to hear the criminal revision petition in Crl.R.P.No.48 of 2021 on the merits of the case and also on I.A.No.II of 2020 and pass orders at the earliest; until passing of such orders in Criminal Revision Petition No.48 of 2021 stay the operation of the order dated 01062021 passed by the Hon’ble Court to Civil Judge and JMFC, Yelburga in C.C.No.67 of 2021 in the interest of justice and equity.

2. Quash the order dated 10012022 passed by the Hon’ble Court of Civil Judge and JMFC, Yelburga in Crl.Misc.No.313 of 2021 in the interest of justice and equity.

3. Quash the public auction publication dated 25.01.2022 bearing No.KoNaSa:Aa.Ha: Kandaya Shakhe:202122 passed by the respondent No.2 in pursuance to the order dated 10012022 passed by the Hon’ble Court of Civil Judge and JMFC, Yelburga in Crl.Misc.No.313 of 2021 in the interest of justice and equity.

4. Pass such other order or direction, that is deemed fit under the facts and circumstances of the case, in the interest of justice and equity.”

2. Heard Shri V.M.Sheelavant, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Shri B.V.Somapur, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent no.1 and Shri R.K.Kulkarni, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent no.2.

3. Brief facts leading to the filing of the present petition, as borne out from the pleadings, are as follows:

a) The respondent and the petitioner claim to know each other for close to 20 years. It is the claim of the respondent/complainant that owing to family necessities and for business purposes, the petitioner/accused appears to have approached the complainant on 12.12.2020 for availing a loan of rupees two crores in cash which was acceded. The same was termed by the complainant as a hand loan and the assurance according to the complainant was that the accused would return the money within one month on or before 11.1.2021. In discharge of her liability the accused appears to have issued a cheque dated 11.01.2021 for rupees two crores drawn on Syndicate Bank. At the time of issuing the cheque, it is the case of the complainant that the accused had assured that she has sufficient funds in the account and the cheque would be honoured. The cheque was presented but dishonoured as funds insufficient. On the ground that the accused had issued a bogus cheque which was returned for want of sufficient funds, the complainant caused a legal notice on 12.01.2021. On receipt of the legal notice, the petitioner replied stating that it was false to allege that she had availed rupees two crores hand loan that too in cash agreeing to pay back the same on or before 11.1.2021.

b) After the reply being given by the petitioner denying all the allegations made in the legal notice caused upon her, the complainant registers a complaint under Section 200 of the Cr.P.C. in P.C.R.No.6 of 2021 which is now pending consideration in C.C.No.67 of 2021. In the aforesaid C.C.No.67 of 2021, the complainant files an application under Section 143A of the Act for grant of interim compensation during the pendency of the said criminal case. To the said application, the petitioner files her objections and notwithstanding the objections, it is the claim of the complainant that an amount of 20% was direct