19.08.2025 In the High Court at Calcutta SL. 10 Circuit Bench at Jalpaiguri Court No. 3 Criminal Revisional Jurisdiction Suvayan C.R.R. 391 of 2025 In Re: - An application under Section 438 and read with Section 442 read with Section 528 of BNSS, 2023 (corresponding to Section 397 read with Section 401 read with Section 482 of the Cr.P.C., 1973)

And In the matter of: Bhaskar Majumdar ….petitioner.

Mr. Jaydeep Kanta bhowmik Mr. Shubham Kumar Ms. Sayantani Das Ms. Priti Das …for the petitioner.

1. The affidavit-of-service as filed today on behalf of the revisionist is taken on record.

2. None appears on behalf of the opposite party no. 1 despite service.

3. The legality, propriety and correctness of the order dated

21.03.2025 as passed in C.R. Case no. 573 of 2017 by the Judicial Magistrate, 3^rd Court, Jalpaiguri is the subject matter of the instant revisional application.

4. By the impugned order dated 21.03.2025 the learned Trial Court in a proceeding under the provisions of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘said Act’ in short) directed the present revisionist who is the accused before the learned Trial Court to make payment of Rs. 10,000/- to the complainant in default he would pass an order for issuance of warrant of arrest.

5. At this juncture, Mr. Bhowmik, learned Advocate for the revisionist/accused at the very outset draws attention of this Court to Section 143A of the said Act. It is submitted that it is the legislative mandate in the provisions of Section 143A of the said Act that a Court while dealing with a complaint under the said Act is within his power to pass an order directing the accused to pay an interim compensation to the complainant which shall not exceed 20 percent of the amount of the cheque.

6. It is submitted by Mr. Bhowmik that from the certified copy of the earlier orders it would reveal that before the learned Trial Court, the complainant has not approached by filing any application or otherwise praying for disbursement of interim compensation in terms of Section 143A of the said Act. It is thus submitted by Mr. Bhowmik that in absence of any such application on the part of the complainant the direction for payment of Rs. 10,000/- to the complainant is arbitrary in nature especially when in the impugned order there was no indication at all that the learned Trial Court directed for payment of Rs. 10,000/- towards interim compensation.

7. On careful consideration of the entire materials as placed before this Court and after hearing the learned Advocate for the revisionist/accused, it appears to this Court that in the impugned order dated 21.03.2025 there was no indication as to why learned Trial Court directed the accused to pay Rs. 10,000/- in default he indicated that he would issue warrant of arrest against the accused.

8. From the certified copy of the earlier orders this Court finds no whisper regarding any approach by the complainant regarding the prayer for disbursement of interim compensation.

9. In view of such, this Court finds no much justification in the order under challenge dated 21.03.2025 as passed by the learned Trial Court in C.R. Case no. 573 of 2017.

10. Accordingly, the instant revisional application is hereby allowed. 11. Consequently, the impugned order dated 21.03.2025 as well as the subsequent order dated 19.04.2025 regarding issuance of warrant of arrest against the present revisionist in C.R. Case no. 573 of 2017 as passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, 3rd Court, Jalpaiguri are hereby quashed.

12. Consequently, learned Trial Court is directed to permit the present revisionist/accused to remain on same bail if he appears before him in-person on 23.05.2025 failing which learned Trial Court will be at liberty to issue fresh warrant of arrest against the present revisionist/accused.

13. Before parting with, it is further directed that the learned Trial Court may dispense with the personal appearance of the present revisionist/accused in connection with