ORAL ORDER

Applicant has challenged impugned order passed on

14.7.2021 below Exh. 1 in Criminal Case No. 56752 of 2019 by 2nd Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Surat directing the present applicant to deposit 20% of the cheque amount by way of interim compensation to the complainant.

Heard learned advocate for the applicant.

Learned advocate for the applicant submits that impugned order is contrary to the established principle of law and against the evidence on record. That, loan was availed by the present applicant from Finance Bank i.e. respondent No.2 on 8.9.2016 which was sanctioned to the tune of Rs. 9,69,937/- and its installments were started from 4th October, 2016 for 20 years. That, security was given by way of mortagage deed and some cheques to the respondent No.2 if, the present applicant fails to paid the said EMI to the respondent No.2. That, loan amount is paying by the present applicant since 30th September, 2016 to 6th July, 2021 except sum of Rs.81,163/- That, such order cannot be passed by the Court below in a hurried manner, as applicant is paying loan amount regularly to the respondent No.2. That, learned Judge has not considered the overall facts and conduct of the applicant and has committed grave error & law and fact, and therefore, learned advocate for the applicant requested to quash and set aside the impugned order dated

14th July, 2021 passed by the trial Court.

Considering the issue involved in the present case, no notice is required to be issued to respondents herein.

Having heard learned advocate appearing for the applicant, it appears that respondent No.2 filed private criminal complaint No. 56752 of 2019 against the present applicant under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act, 1981 before the court of learned 2nd Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate First Class, Surat. As per the averments made in the complaint, loan was sanctioned by respondent No.2 and loan of Rs.9,69,937/- from BL Micro Mortgage was sanctioned. Towards discharge of legal debt liability of the complainant, present applicant issued cheque of Rs. 8,88,565/- in favour of the complainant with trust and assure that the cheque No. 000017 on 5th August, 2019 would be presented. The said cheque was dishonoured when presented before the bank authority for enchashment with a return memo under the remarks of “Funds Insufficient” on 30th September, 2019. Demand notice dated 4th October, 2019 was issued by the complainant and sent it by R.P.Ad u/s. 138(B) of the Negotiable Instrument Act, 1981 inforrming about the dishonour of the said cheque and requesting to pay the amount covered in the said cheque. Notice was duly served on 15th October, 2019 to the present applicant. Thereafter, applicant had failed to make the remaining payment of Rs. 8,88,565/- to the complainant bank against till date despite service of the legal demand notice. Hence, this complaint was filed. Thereafter, plea of the present applicant was recorded wherein, he did not accept his guilty and requested to proceed the matter. Court, while referring Section 143(A) of the Negotiable Instrument Act, passed the order directing the present applicant to pay 20% of the cheque amount to the complainant by way of compensation.

Section 143A of The Negotiable Instruments (Amendment)Act, 2018 empowers the Court while trying an offence under Section 138 of the NI Act, to pass an order to pay interim compensation to the complainant in a summary trial or in summon case, where the pleads not guilty to the accusation made in the complaint Considering the submissions made by learned advocate for the applicant and impugned order passed by the trial Court dated 14th July, 2021, according to this Court, no error is committed by the trial Court in directing the present applicant to pay 20% of the cheque amount by way of compensation and as per the submission of learned advocate appearing for the applicant cheque amount is not paid to the respondent yet. Accordingly, this application st