Back
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD
Chillakur Sumalatha, J.
Lingamaneni Venkata Surya Rajasekhar - Petitioner
Versus
The State of Telangana, reptd by its Public Prosecutor, another - Respondents
Criminal Petition Nos. 9830, 9832, 9836, 9843, 9860, 9861 and 9744 of 2022
Decided On : 19-11-2022
Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 - Section 138 and 143-A – Offence of Cheque Dishonoured - Interim compensation - Whether the complainants in respective cases are entitled for interim compensation as prayed for. – Held, Courts are under obligation to apply their judicious mind and to take a decision whether or not to award interim compensation - Court does not find any such circumstances to hold that word “may” used in Section 143-A of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, be read as “shall” - At same time, having regard to the aims and objectives for which the said provision is introduced, Court is of view that in all deserving cases, it would be wholly desirable to award interim compensation to extent indicated in said provision, however, subject to judicious discretion to be exercised - Court, does not find any grounds, more so justifiable grounds to exercise the power granted under Section 482 Cr.P.C. and to quash impugned orders that are rendered by revisional Court - Criminal Petitions are dismissed.
ORDER :
These Criminal Petitions seven in number, vide Criminal Petition Nos.9830, 9832, 9836, 9843, 9860, 9861 and 9744 of 2022, though arose out of different Criminal Revision Petitions, are based on similar set of facts. Also, common question of law is involved. Hence, all are taken up together for discussion and disposal.
2. Challenge in Criminal Petition No.9830 of 2022 is the order that is rendered by the Court of Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Hyderabad in Criminal Revision Petition No.82 of 2022 dated 14.10.2022. The said order is the outcome of the decision rendered by the Court of VI Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad in Crl.M.P.No.90 of 2022 in STC.NI.No.288 of 2021, dated 13.6.2022.
3. Challenge in Criminal Petition No.9832 of 2022 is the order that is rendered by the Court of Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Hyderabad in Criminal Revision Petition No.83 of 2022 dated 14.10.2022. The said order is the outcome of the decision rendered by the Court of VI Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad in Crl.M.P.No.88 of 2022 in STC.NI.No.300 of 2021, dated 13.6.2022.
4. Challenge in Criminal Petition No.9836 of 2022 is the order that is rendered by the Court of Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Hyderabad in Criminal Revision Petition No.88 of 2022 dated 14.10.2022. The said order is the outcome of the decision rendered by the Court of VI Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad in Crl.M.P.No.323 of 2022 in STC.NI.No.296 of 2021, dated 13.6.2022.
5. Challenge in Criminal Petition No.9843 of 2022 is the order that is rendered by the Court of Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Hyderabad in Criminal Revision Petition No.89 of 2022 dated 14.10.2022. The said order is the outcome of the decision rendered by the Court of VI Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad in Crl.M.P.No.328 of 2022 in STC.NI.No.294 of 2021, dated 13.6.2022.
6. Challenge in Criminal Petition No.9860 of 2022 is the order that is rendered by the Court of Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Hyderabad in Criminal Revision Petition No.84 of 2022 dated 14.10.2022. The said order is the outcome of the decision rendered by the Court of VI Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad in Crl.M.P.No.92 of 2022 in STC.NI.No.292 of 2021, dated 13.6.2022.
7. Challenge in Criminal Petition No.9861 of 2022 is the order that is rendered by the Court of Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Hyderabad in Criminal Revision Petition No.87 of 2022 dated 14.10.2022. The said order is the outcome of the decision rendered by the Court of VI Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad in Crl.M.P.No.77 of 2022 in STC.NI.No.314 of 2021, dated 13.6.2022.
8. Challenge in Criminal Petition No.9744 of 2022 is the order that is rendered by the Court of Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Hyderabad in Criminal Revision Petition No.81 of 2022 dated 14.10.2022. The said order is the outcome of the decision rendered by the Court of VI Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad in Crl.M.P.No.89 of 2022 in STC.NI.No.289 of 2021, dated 13.6.2022.
9. The respective complainants in all the complaints, which are filed under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, moved separate applications invoking Section 143-A of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, seeking the Court to direct the accused therein to deposit 20% of the cheque amount as interim compensation pending adjudication of the main cases. The trial Court disallowed their request and aggrieved by the same, the respective complainants moved Criminal Revision Petitions before the Court of Metropolitan Sessions Judge, Hyderabad. The revisional Court allowed those Crl.R.Ps by setting aside the orders of the trial Court and consequently, directed the accused to deposit 20% of the cheque amount as interim compensation. Aggrieved by the said orders, the accused are before this Court.
10. Making his submission, learned counsel for the petitioners contended that the petitioners-accused have not admitted their liability before the trial Court. Learned counsel stated that there is no legally enforceable debt and thus, the accused
The discretionary nature of Section 143A of the NI Act, the need for the Trial Court to record reasons for awarding compensation, and the limited scope of interference under Section 482 Cr.P.C.
The court affirmed that under Section 143A of the NI Act, the power to award interim compensation is discretionary, requiring evaluation of the merits of the case and the accused's defence.
[The provisions of Section 143A of the NI Act, 1881 are directory and grant discretion to the court to award interim compensation, which must be exercised based on a prima facie evaluation of the mer....
Word ‘may’ appearing in Section 143A of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 is not discretionary but directory in nature.
Section 397 empowers Court of Sessions or even this Court to examine record of any proceeding before any inferior Criminal Court against closure of any proceeding.
Interim compensation under Section 143-A of the NI Act is discretionary, requiring consideration of both parties' merits and the opportunity for a defense, which was not provided in this case.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
