$~85 & 86 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + CRL.REV.P.(NI) 232/2025 & CRL.M.A. 29626/2025 RAJVIR SINGH .....Petitioner Through: Ms. Tejinder Kaur, Advocate versus SARVESH KUMAR .....Respondent Through:

+ CRL.REV.P.(NI) 233/2025 RAJVIR SINGH .....Petitioner Through: Ms. Tejinder Kaur, Advocate versus UMESH KUMAR .....Respondent Through:

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV NARULA

O R D E R

% 06.10.2025

1. The present petitions under Section 397 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, [1“Cr.P.C.”] assails the orders dated 27^th August, 2025 passed by the JMFC (N.I.) Court-01, Saket District Courts, New Delhi in Complaint Case Nos. 832/2023 and 756/2023, dismissing the Petitioner’s applications under Section 143A of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881² seeking directions for payment of 20% of the cheque amount by the Respondents.

2. Since the grounds of challenge and the reasoning contained in the impugned orders are identical, this Court finds it appropriate to dispose of both the petitions by way of a common order.

3. The Petitioner/Complainant, had filed complaints against the respective Respondents alleging offences under Section 138 of NI Act.

4. In those proceedings, notices under Section 251 of Cr.P.C. were served upon the Respondents, who pleaded not guilty and faced trial. The cases have now reached the stage of the Complainant’s evidence. The Complainant’s witnesses have been examined, and the matter presently stands posted for their cross-examination.

5. In this backdrop, the Petitioner moved applications under Section 143A of NI Act seeking directions for payment of 20% of the cheque amount. The said applications have been dismissed by the impugned orders. Since the reasoning in both impugned orders is identical, for the sake of convenience, the rationale from the impugned order in CRL.REV.P.(NI)

232/2025 is reproduced below: “In CRL.REV.P.(NI) 232/2025

1. Vide this order, I shall dispose of the application u/s. 143A of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (hereinafter referred to as the NI Act) filed by the complainant for seeking 20% interim compensation inthecase.

2. Briefly, the case of the complainant is that in January, 2021, the accused approached the complainant and stated that he is in need of Rs.6,00,000/- for the purpose of registration of his house. Keeping in view the relations between the parties, the complainant on 30.01.2021, 16.04.2021 & 11.08.2021 gave Rs.2,00,000/- in cash, Rs.2,16,000/- through cheque and Rs.90,000/- in cash respectively. He also gave Rs.84,000/- in various installments. The amount was given after withdrawing the same from his bank account. After one year the complainant approached the accused and asked to return the amount. Accordingly, on 15.10.2022, the accused issued cheque bearing no. 086121 dated 15.10.2022 for Rs. 5,90,000/- drawn on Bank of India, Nehru Place Branch (hereinafter referred to as the said ‘cheque in question’) assuring that the same will get encashed on presentation. However, the same returned with remarks ‘Funds Insufficient’ vide return memo dated 04.11.2022. Consequently, the complainant vide legal notice dated 02.12.2022 asked the accused to pay the cheque amount, however, as the same was not paid by the

2“NIAct”

accused,thepresent complaint cametobefiled.

3. The accused entered his appearance and on 09.09.2024, notice under Section 251 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as “CrPC”) was put to him, to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. Notably, he admitted his signatures on the cheque in question but stated the following in his defence:

“I have signed the cheque in question. I have not filled the particularson thesame. Ihad received the legaldemandnotice. The cheque in question was given only for security purposes to thecomplainantasmybrotherUmeshKumarandItogethertook asumofRs.1,50,000/-ofRs.2,00,000/-fromtheComplainant.”

4. In the application filed u/s l43A of the NI Act on behalf of the complainant, it has been contended that