The court emphasized the importance of adhering to principles of natural justice, recording reasons for decisions, and exercising discretionary power in a thoughtful and sagacious manner.

N.S. SHEKHAWAT,  J.

1. The petitioner has filed the present petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. with a prayer to quash the order dated 06.09.2021 (Annexure P-4) passed by the Court of JMFC, SAS Nagar, District Court, Mohali in a complaint bearing No. NACT/90/2020 titled as “ Tanu Bathla Vs. Raman Kumar Arora and another”, whereby, the petitioner has been directed to deposit/pay 20% of the cheque amount, i.e., 1,00,000/- to the complainant within a period of 60 days. A further prayer has been made for quashing of the impugned judgment dated 27.09.2022 (Annexure P-6) passed by the Court of Additional District and Sessions Judge, SAS Nagar, District Mohali, whereby, the revision petition filed by the present petitioner has also been ordered to be dismissed.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in the present case, the complaint titled as “ Tanu Bathla Vs. Raman Kumar Arora and another”, (Annexure P-1) was filed against the present petitioner and his wife by the respondent under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act 1881 (hereinafter to be referred as 'the Act').

3. Vide order dated 01.02.2020 (Annexure P-2), the present petitioner and his wife were ordered to be summoned for committing offence under Section 138 of the Act. After that, the notice of accusation was ordered to be served upon the petitioner and his wife by the trial Court. However, on 06.09.2021, the oral request made by the respondent was allowed and the petitioner/accused and his wife were directed to deposit/pay 20% of the cheque amount, i.e., Rs. 1,00,000/- to the complainant within a period of sixty days. The petitioner filed a revision petition before the Court of Additional District and Sessions Judge, Mohali and vide impugned judgment dated 27.09.2022 (Annexure P-6), the Court dismissed the revision petition filed by the present petitioners.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the trial Court failed to adhere to the principles of natural justice as well as maxim “audi alteram partem” and no opportunity of hearing was granted to the petitioner by way of filing the reply/objection and discretionary power has been wrongly exercised by the trial Court. Still further, the law is well settled that while exercising such a discretionary power, the Court is bound to record reasonable, proper, specific and cogent reasons to support its decision. The Court had the discretion to grant interim compensation, which could very from 1% to 20% and the discretion was not exercised in the manner known to law. Apart from that, the provisions under Section 143 of the Act have been misinterpreted as mandatory provisions of law and the impugned order has been passed in a hurry, without recording its satisfaction. Even, the revisional Court had clearly overlooked the peculiar facts and circumstances of the present case and the impugned orders are legally unsustainable.

5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent has supported both the orders Annexure P-4 and P-6 by submitting that the trial Court had rightly granted the interim compensation under Section 138 of the Act. However, he could not dispute the fact that the trial Court had not recorded any reasons, while awarding interim maintenance under the said provisions of law.

6. Before proceeding further, it would be appropriate to reproduce the impugned order dated 06.09.2021 (Annexure P-1), which is as under:-

“Upon notice, accused persons appeared in the Court. Heard. Finding a prima facie case, the notice of accusation under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act is framed against the accused persons, to which, they pleaded not guilty. Their plea have also been recorded. On oral request of complainant and as per provision under Section 143-A Negotiable Instrument Act, accused persons are directed to deposit/pay 20% of the cheque amount i.e. Rs.1,00,000/- to the complainant within 60 days. Now to come up on 05.10.2021 for DWs”.

7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and peru