ORDER :

1. Having regard to the nature of order proposed to be passed in the instant case, this Court sees no necessity to issue notice to the respondent, who in the event of notice being issued, shall be unnecessarily burdened to engage a lawyer to defend her before this Court.

2. Instant petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India read with Section 482 of Cr.P.C. lays challenge to order dated 22.10.2021, titled as Smt. Ramanjeet Chadha vs. Sh. Mahender Kumar Pathak, whereby the learned court below while allowing application under Section 145(2) of the Negotiable Instruments Act (in short, ‘the Act’), having been filed by the petitioner-accused (hereinafter ‘accused’) also directed him to deposit interim compensation to the tune of Rs. 42,600/- i.e. equivalent to 15% of the amount in cheque, within a period of sixty days.

3. Precise question, which needs to be adjudicated in the present case, is “whether the provisions of Section 143-A of the Act are prospective in operation and same can be applied to the proceedings, which were pending adjudication prior to introduction of the aforesaid provision in the statute books.”

4. Grouse of the petitioner is that since the aforesaid provision came to be inserted by way of Amendment Act No. 20 of 2018, learned Court below has erred in directing the accused to pay an interim compensation amounting to Rs. 45,000/- in the proceedings, which were initiated at the behest of the respondent-complainant (hereinafter referred to as ‘the complainant’) on 25.4.2018.

5. Case of the complainant is that in January, 2016, he lent sum of Rs. 4.00 lac to the accused and out of the aforesaid amount, accused returned Rs. 1,16,000/- but qua the remaining amount, issued cheque bearing No. 212804 dated 20.12.2018, amounting to Rs. 2,84,000/- payable at PNB, Totu, Shimla, HP. Since aforesaid cheque was dishonoured on account of insufficient funds and accused failed to make the payment despite having received the legal notice, complainant instituted a complaint under Section 138 of the Act on 25.4.2018. In the aforesaid case, court exercising power under Section 143A of the Act, directed the accused to pay interim compensation of Rs. 42,600/- and as such, he has approached this Court in the instant proceedings.

6. Issue, as has been raised in the instant petition, stands already decided by this Court vide judgment dated 13.11.2019, in Cr. MMO No. 681 of 2019, titled Vinod Kumar vs. Mukesh Kumar, wherein this Court while placing reliance upon the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Apex Court in case titled G.J. Raja vs. Tejraj Surana, 2019 (19) SCC 469, has held that Section 143-A is prospective in operation and provisions contained in the Section can be applied/invoked only in cases where offence under Section 138 of the Act was committed after introduction of Section 143 in the Statue Book. Relevant Paras of the judgment rendered in Vinod Kumar’s case (supra) read as under:

“(5) Leaving everything aside, S.143A, whereby provision has been provided for payment of interim compensation during the pendency of proceedings under S.138 of the Act, came into force with effect from 1.9.2018, by way of Amending Act No. 20 of 2018.

(6) Hon'ble Apex Court in case titled G.J. Raja vs. Tejraj Surana, Cr. Appeal No. 1160 of 2019, decided on 30.7.2019, has categorically held that S.143A is prospective in operation. Hon'ble Apex Court has categorically held in the aforesaid judgment that provisions of S.143A can be applied/invoked only in cases, wherein offence under S.138 was committed after introduction of S.143 in the Statute Book. Reference is made to following Paras of aforesaid judgments:

“23. We must, however, advert to a decision of this Court in Surinder Singh Deswal and Others vs. Virender Gandhi where Section 148 of the Act which was also introduced by the same Amendment Act 20 of 2018 from 01.09.2018 was held by this Court to be retrospective in operation. As against Section 143A of the Act which applies at