ORDER

This petition is filed by the petitioner-complainant under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. for quashing the impugned order passed by the Trial Court in C.C.No.6855/2021 dated 22.04.2022 for having rejecting the application filed by the petitioner under Section 143(2) of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (for short 'N.I. Act') and to reject the defence of the respondent-

accused.

2. Heard the arguments of learned counsel for the parties.

3. The case of the petitioner is that the petitioner has filed a complaint under Section 138 of N.I. Act for having dishonoured the cheque issued by the respondent-accused for Rs.86,00,000/. After appearance of the respondent-accused and recording the plea, the Trial Court passed an order to deposit 10% of the cheque amount as per Section 143(A) of the N.I. Act and directed to deposit within 60 days. But the respondent-accused did not pay the amount. Therefore, the petitioner moved application for striking out the defence and not to permit the respondent to cross examine the P.W.1 which came to be dismissed by the Trial Court. Hence, the petitioner is before this Court.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that once the respondent disobeyed the order of the Trial Court not depositing the interim compensation within 60 days, he has no right to cross examine the witness. Therefore, he shall not be permitted to cross examine as P.W.1. But the Trial Court committed error in rejecting the application. In support of his case, learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the judgment of the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Ravi vs. Moggannagowda in Crl.P.No.462/2020 dated

13.10.2020, wherein, the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court has held though the interim compensation can be recoverable as per Section 421 of Cr.P.C., however, the amount is not paid by the respondent and he should not be allowed to cross examine the complainant. However, in the final order, it was revealed that during the pendency of the said case, the accused paid the entire amount and permitted the accused to cross examine the complainant. However, this Court in Crl.P.No.1807/2021 dated 26.07.2021 has taken clear view that the interim compensation ordered by the Magistrate can be recoverable as provided under Section 421 of Cr.P.C. as per Sub Section 5 of Section 143(A) of N.I. Act. This Court while relying upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Mohd. Hussain @ Julfikar Ali vs. The State (Govt. Of NCT) Delhi on 11 January, 2012 reported in 2012(2) SCC 584 has categorically held that if the accused did not deposit the interim compensation, it can be recovered under Section 421 of Cr.P.C., but it cannot be denied for the purpose of cross examination of the complainant.

5. In the recent case, the Hon'ble Supreme Court also taken similar view in the case of Noor Mohammed vs.

Khurram Pasha in Criminal Appeal No.--- of 2022 (Arising out of Special Leave Petition (Criminal) No.2872/2022), that the right of cross examination cannot be denied which is guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India and the amount, if not paid by the accused which was ordered by the Trial Court, the interim compensation can be recoverable as per Section 421 of Cr.P.C. Therefore, in my view, the order passed by the Trial Court is based upon some principle and as per Section 143(A) (5) of the N.I. Act.

6. Such being the case, the petition is devoid of merits and liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, the petition is dismissed.

The petitioner is at liberty to recover the interim compensation as per Section 143(A)(5) of N.I. Act read with Section 421/431 of Cr.P.C. as fine.