The court held that interim compensation under Section 143-A of the NI Act requires a prima facie case evaluation, leading to the quashing of the trial court's order due to existing disputed facts.

JUDGMENT :

PRANJAL DAS, J.

1. Heard Mr. S. Parashar, the learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. F. Khan, learned counsel for the respondent No. 2/complainant.

2. The respondent No. 2 as complainant has filed a complaint petition before the Court of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Nalbari, under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, (herein after NI Act), alleging commission of offence under said provision of NI Act, with regard to a cheque dated 14-06-2021, bearing No. 045164 of amount Rs.20,00,000/-, issued by the petitioner/accused.

3. It is stated that the cheque upon being presented, was dishonoured, on the ground of “drawer's signature differs”. It is stated by the respondent No.2/complainant that after following the procedural formalities, the complainant/petitioner was initiated, giving rise to N.I. Case No. 59 of 2021 pending before the learned Additional CJM, Nalbari and at the stage of evidence. In the said proceeding, the complainant filed a petition, invoking the powers under Section 143-A of the NI Act, seeking interim compensation.

4. After hearing the parties, the said petition was allowed by the learned trial court, vide its order dated 26-09-2023, directing the petitioner/accused to pay interim compensation in terms of Section 143-Aof NI Act, to the extent of 20% of the cheque amount. The accused/petitioner, aggrieved by the order directing interim compensation, has come before this Court with this criminal revision, seeking interference with the said impugned order dated 26-09-2023

5. The main contentions of the petitioner/accused are that he denies the issuance of the cheque or the signature appearing thereof. It is also contended that the cheque was drawn on the Dispur branch of the South Indian Bank and that the accused/petitioner does not have any account there. It is also contended and submitted that with regard to issuance of the said cheque, purportedly forging the signature of the accused/petitioner, he lodged an information before the Hatigaon Police Station on 18-07-2021, which was registered into Hatigaon Police Case No. 530 of 2021 under Section 420/468/471 IPC.

6. It is stated and submitted that the accused/petitioner and the respondent No.2/complainant had entered into an agreement dated 12.09.2018, whereby the complainant as power of attorney holder of his mother was seeking to sell lands belonging to his mother and as per the agreement, the accused/petitioner assured him an amount of Rs.60,00,000/- and the sale of the lands at any amount above the same Rs.60 lakhs would be the commission and profit of the accused petitioner.

7. However, despite the elapse of about 2 years, the accused/petitioner could not gather such customers and accordingly, the complainant sought cancellation of the agreement. A copy of the deed of cancellation dated 07-11-2020 has been annexed with the petition and shown as executed between Pranab Jyoti Deka, the Respondent No. 2/complainant and Madhu Ram Deka, the accused/petitioner.

8. On the other hand, as per the respondent No. 2/complainant, when he insisted on the accused/petitioner to cancel the agreement due to his not finding customers - the accused/petitioner requested him to wait for a few more months, stating that negotiation is going on with some customers and in this background, the complainant agreed to extend the agreement till November, 2020.

9. It is the further case of the complainant that subsequently the accused/petitioner brought 3 (three) customers and the complainant executed two sale deeds on 07-11-2020 in the house of the accused/petitioner. But the complainant was not aware of the p