IMPORTANT POINT
The court established that the discretion under Sec. 143-A of the NI Act must be exercised judiciously, taking into account the presumption of liability under Sec. 139, and that mechanical rejection of applications for interim compensation is contrary to law.

JUDGMENT/ORDER

1. Heard both sides.

2. Common issue is involved in both petitions. Parties are same. Hence, petitions are disposed off by common order.

3. The petitioner in both the petitions is the original complainant. Complaints are filed for an offence under Sec. 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. Respondent is arrayed as accused in the complaints.

4. Criminal Case no. OA/179/NIA/2020/F is pending before the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Mapusa. The complaint relates to the dishonour of cheque issued by respondent for an amount of Rs.16,41,900.00. It was dishonoured with bank endorsement 'drawer's signature differs'. Legal notice was issued to the accused. Reply was posted by accused denying the facts. Complaint was filed for an offence under Sec. 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, (herein after referred to as 'NI Act'). Process was issued. Pursuant to service of summons, the respondent/accused appeared before the Court. The petitioner/complainant filed an application under Sec. 143-A of the NI Act seeking direction to the accused to pay interim compensation to the complainant in terms of Sec. 143-A of the NI Act. The application was opposed by the accused by filing reply dtd. 20/8/2022. The learned Magistrate vide order dtd. 13/12/2022, rejected the application.

5. The impugned order dtd. 13/12/2022 passed in Criminal Case no. OA/179/NIA/2020/F is challenged in Criminal Writ Petition No. 41 of 2023.

6. The petitioner filed another complaint viz. Criminal Case No. OA/180/NIA/2020/F for offence under Sec. 138 of the NI Act against the respondent before the same Court. The complaint relates to the dishonour of cheque bearing no. 000152 dtd. 29/5/2020 issued by the respondent for an amount of Rs.5,70,000.00 for the reason 'drawer signature differs'. Demand notice was issued. Complaint was filed. Process was issued. The complainant filed an application under Sec. 143-A of the NI Act on 30/4/2022. The application was opposed by filing reply. Vide order dtd. 13/12/2022, the application preferred by the petitioner was rejected.

7. The impugned order dtd. 13/12/2022 passed in Criminal Case no. OA/179/NIA/2020 is challenged in Criminal Writ Petition no. 42 of 2023.

8. Learned Advocate for the petitioner submitted that the impugned orders are contrary to law. The reasons assigned by the learned Magistrate for disallowing the application under Sec. 143- A of NI Act are erroneous. The orders suffer from non-application of mind. The Court failed to exercise its discretion in the present cases. The Court failed to consider the presumption of law under Sec. 139 of the NI Act. The findings are contrary to evidence on record. The learned Magistrate considered the defence of the accused which was to be pleaded during the trial. The Court relied upon the complaint filed by the respondent to the police in respect to the alleged incident of forcefully obtaining the cheques from the accused. The police complaint was filed belatedly. That could not be a ground for refusing the compensation under Sec. 143-A of the Act. In the reply of the accused dtd. 23/6/2020, he has admitted that amount of Rs.7,90,000.00 have been given by accused to the complainant which proves the case of complainant that the accused had received the amount and liable to repay the same.

9. Learned Advocate for respondent submitted that grant of relief under Sec. 143-A of NI Act is discretionary. The learned Magistrate has used his discretion while rejecting the application preferred by the petitioner. The respondent could demonstrate that there was no liability in respect to the cheques. Cheques were forcefully taken by the complainant. Complaint was lodged with Police Station with regards to the incident of forcefully obtaining the cheques. Prima facie, the case was false and hence there is no infirmity in the impugned orders. The accused is not liable to pay the disputed cheque amount which is the subject matter of complaints and there is no