Heard Sri. S. S. Sajjanashetty, the learned counsel

for the petitioner and Sri. Chaitanyakumar C.M. the

learned counsel for the respondent No.1.

02. The petitioner is before this Court seeking to

set-aside the order dated 27.12.2022 passed by the Trial

Court on applications being filed under Section 143-A of

the Negotiable Instruments Act (for short ‘N.I. Act’) and

under Section 294 and Section 311 of the Code of Criminal

Procedure (for short ‘Cr.P.C).

03. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted

that the complaint has been lodged against the respondent

No.1 for the offence punishable under Section 138 of N.I.

Act, wherein the respondent No.1 is due for a sum of

Rs.16,50,000/-. During the pendency of the case, an

application under Section 143-A of the N.I.Act was filed

seeking interim relief or compensation which stipulated

under Act, by the petitioner. The Trial Court while

- 5 -

considering the said application observed that the accused

seriously disputed about the amount given by the

complainant to him. When such being the fact, in order to

ascertain the reality the interim compensation cannot be

given under Section 138 of the N. I. Act.

04. Similarly, the petitioner being the complainant,

filed an application under Section 294 of Cr.P.C. and also

under Section 311 of Cr.P.C. for production of documents

and marking the same by PW.1, the same was rejected.

05. The learned counsel for the petitioner further

submits that the documents which they have sought to

produce before the Court, are relevant documents for the

purpose of substantiating their claim. It is their grievance

that if the application is not allowed and permission is not

granted to produce such documents, certainly greater

injustice would be caused to the petitioner. It is further

submitted that when there is a provision under the Act, in

terms of Section 143-A of the Act to pay interim

compensation, the Court has to exercise its power to

award the interim compensation to the petitioner.

- 6 -

Notwithstanding, the merit of the case. The Trial Court

ignored the same and proceeded to reject the application,

which is not tenable and not justified under law. As such,

the learned counsel for the petitioner prays to allow the

petition.

06. Per contra, learned counsel for respondent No.1

vehemently opposed the petition stating that prima facie

the petitioner failed to make out a case as to whether the

respondent No.1 is liable to pay the cheque amount or

not.

Unless

and

until

it

is

proved

that

the

accused/respondent No.1 owed a sum as stated in the

complaint, granting interim compensation would not arise.

The learned counsel justifying the order passed by the

Trial

Court

submitted

that

the

production

of

the

documents, at this stage, may not arise and if such

documents are produced and marked, greater injustice

would be caused to respondent No.1. Therefore, rejection

of the order passed by the Trial Court is proper and

tenable under law. As such, the learned counsel prays to

dismiss the petition.

- 7 -

07. Having heard the learned counsel for the

respective parties and also perused the order passed by

the Trial court, it appears that the provision of Section

143-A of the N.I Act makes it clear that the interim

compensation has to be paid during the pendency of the

case. The object and intent of the legislature to enact

such provision should not be ignored. The Trial Court

while rejecting the application filed under Section 143-A of

the N.I Act ignored in assigning the reason for its

conclusion. Regard being had to the principles of the

enactment

of

Section

143A

of

the

N.I.

Act,

notwithstanding the merits of the case, the interim

compensation should be awarded. However, the interim

compensation to be awarded shall not be exceeded 20% of

the cheque amount. Hence, the order passed by the Trial

Court in respect of application filed under Section 143A of

the N.I. Act, liable to be set-aside.

- 8 -

08. As regards under Sections 294 and Section