21.05.2025 (Ct. No. 03)

RS CALCUTTA HIGH COURT IN THE CIRCUIT BENCH AT JALPAIGURI APPELLATE SIDE CRR 285 of 2024 SUMAN RANJAN DASGUPTA -Vs-

DEBOTOSH SANYAL AND ANR.

Mr. Jaydeep Kanta Bhowmik, Adv.

Mr. Sayantan Bhowmik, Adv.

Mr. Shubham Kumar, Adv.

Ms. Sayantani Das,Adv.

… for the petitioner Mr. Aditi Shankar Chakraborty, Adv.

Mr. Abhijit Sarkar, Adv.

… for the State

1. Mr. Jaydeep Kanta Bhowmik, learned counsel, is appearing for the petitioner.

2. Mr. Aditi Shankar Chakraborty, learned counsel, is appearing for the State.

3. None appears on behalf of the opposite party no.1 in spite of service of notice.

4. The petitioner has filed the affidavit of service. Let the same be kept with the record.

5. The petitioner has challenged the order passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, 3rd Court, Jalpaiguri dated 20.07.2024 wherein the learned Magistrate has allowed the application filed by the complainant/opposite party no.1 under Section 143 A of the Negotiable Instrument Act directing the petitioner to pay an amount of Rs.1,76,000/- being the 10% amount of the cheque amount of Rs.17,60,000/- within 60 days from the date of the order.

6. Counsel for the petitioner has filed this revisional application specifically on two grounds i.e. the order passed by the learned Magistrate is without any reason and the learned Magistrate has not considered the judgment in the case of Rakesh Ranjan Shrivastava v. State of Jharkhand reported in (2024) 4 Supreme Court Case 419 in totality.

7. Learned Counsel for the State submits that the learned Magistrate has passed the order in its discretion and there is no illegality in the said order.

8. Heard learned Counsel for the respective parties.

Perused the materials on record.

9. This Court finds that the complainant/opposite party no. 1 has filed an application before the learned Magistrate under section 143A of the N.I Act. The learned Magistrate only by citing the judgment in the Case of Pawan Bhasim v. State of U.P and Another and Rakesh Ranjan Shrivastava (supra) directed the petitioner to pay 10% of the total cheque amount of Rs.

17,60,000/-.

10. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that though the learned Magistrate has passed the order by referring the above mentioned judgments but the learned Magistrate has not taken into consideration the judgments in its totality.

11. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Rakesh Ranjan Shrivastava (supra) has held as follows:

“23. Even if the court concludes that a case is made out for grant of interim compensation, the court will have to apply its mind to the quantum of interim compensation to be granted. Even at this Stage, the court will have to consider various factors such as the nature of the transaction, the relationship, if any, between the accused and the complainant and the paying capacity of the accused. If the defence of the accused is found to be prima facie a plausible defence, the court may exercise discretion in refusing to grant interim compensation.

24. We may note that the factors required to be considered, which we have set out above, are not exhaustive. There could be several other factors in the facts of a given case, such as, the pendency of a civil suit, etc. While deciding the prayer made under Section 143-A, the Court must record brief reasons indicating consideration of all the relevant factors.

25. In the present case, the trial court has mechanically passed an order of deposit of Rs.10,00,000 without considering the issue of prima facie case and other relevant factors. It is true that the sum of Rs. 10,00,000 represents less than 5% of the cheque amount, but the direction has been issued to pay the amount without application of mind. Even the High Court has not applied its mind. We, therefore, propose to direct the trial court to consider the application for grant of interim compensation afresh. In the meanwhile, the amount of Rs.10,00,000 deposited by the appellant will continue to remain deposited with the trial court.

26. Hence, the impugne