Interim compensation under Section 143A of the Negotiable Instruments Act can only be ordered after the plea of not guilty is entered, ensuring adherence to the due process in initiating such financial obligations.

JUDGMENT :

(Susmita Phukan Khaund, J.)

Heard Mr. Bhaskar Dutta, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner assisted by learned counsel Mr. S. Deka. Also heard Mr. H. Ali, learned counsel for respondent Nos.1, 2 and 3.

2. This is a batch of matters before me arising out of the same cause of action and the matters are disposed off with this common judgment and order.

3. The petitioner M/s Gopiram Chetram is a partnership firm with its office and place of business at Siding Bazaar, Tinsukia and is represented by one of its partner/power of attorney holder, namely, Sri. Sanwarmal Agarwal. The respondents in this case are Kejriwal Sugar Agencies Private Limited, Sri. Surya Prakash Kejriwal and Smti Sangeeta Kejriwal respectively. The respondent No. 1 Kejriwal Sugar Agencies Private Limited is represented by respondent No. 2 Sri. Surya Prakash Kejriwal and respondent No. 3 Smti Sangeeta Kejriwal with their office at Vinayak Complex 55/1A Strand Road, 3rd Floor, opposite Mayo Hospital at Kolkata.

4. The petitioner has filed the petitions under section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.PC for short) seeking quashing and setting aside the impugned orders dated 04.07.2023 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge No. 2 (FTC), Tinsukia in connection with Criminal Revisions Nos. 15(1)/2023, 16(1)/2023, 24(2)/2023 and 25(2)/2023 filed by respondent No. 2 whereby the orders dated 15.03.2023 passed by learned CJM, Tinsukia in N.I. Case Nos. 11 of 2019 and 12 of 2019 directing the respondents herein to pay 10% of two cheque amount i.e, Rs. 50,000/- + Rs. 50,000/- to the petitioner has been set aside. All the correspondences of the respondent's company are made in the name of Prakash Kejriwal who is not only the Director of respondent No. 1 company but also the proprietor of M/s Subham Sugar Agencies. Both the parties made an agreement and it was decided that the respondents would pay in interest of 2% per month on all advance payment made by the petitioner to the respondents from the date of advance payments till the date of supply of sugar. It was agreed that the sugar would be supplied to the petitioner by railway wagon at the Tinsukia/Guwahati destination.

5. During the course of business, the petitioner paid huge amount to the respondents as advance payments for supply of sugar and also there were instances of over billing and short supply to the petitioner and thus dispute arose between the petitioner and the respondents. In such a situation the petitioner issued a letter dated 17.07.2018 to the respondents and requested them to clear the dues. Thereafter again vide letter dated 20.08.2018 a request was made to the petitioner to clear all the dues. The petitioner, on several occasions requested the respondents to settle the amount and refund the outstanding dues and the respondent Nos. 2 and 3 finally agreed to settle the account of the petitioner. The respondents agreed to settle the account of the petitioner for Rs. 10 crores and agreed to make the payment of Rs. 10 crores to the petitioner as full and final settlement amount. It is further submitted that in order to discharge the aforesaid legally enforceable debts towards the petitioner, the respondent No. 2 issued two Account Payee cheques in the account of respondent No. 1 being Account No. 02198620000634 and the Cheque Nos. 001711 dated 30.08.2018 for an amount of Rs. 5 crores and Cheque No.001712 dated 30.08.2018 for an amount of Rs. 5 crores. Both the cheques were dr