Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(Kar) 29305
KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
S.R. KRISHNA KUMAR, J
SRI K R SHIVAKUMAR – Appellant
Versus
SRI SRINIVAS – Respondent
CRIMINAL PETITION NO. 1669 OF 2025
For the Appellants/Petitioners: SRI. HARISH KUMAR M.T.
The court upheld that interim compensation can be mandated under Section 143-A of the N.I. Act based on statutory presumption favoring the complainant, without requiring a full trial.
Headnote:(A) Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 - Section 143-A - Interim compensation - Petitioner challenged order demanding deposit of 5% of the cheque amount pending trial - Court emphasized necessity of judicial reasoning in granting interim orders - Established that statutory presumptions favor complainant - No evident legal infirmities in trial court's rationale - Petition dismissed. (Paras 1-6)
(B) Criminal Procedure Code - Section 397 - Revision petitions - Discretionary nature established - Proposed merits of accused's case not assessed at this stage - Prior proceedings and evidential context evaluated during trial. (Paras 10-15)
Facts of the case:
The petitioner sought to set aside an order mandating interim compensation following the respondent's complaint under Section 138 of the N.I. Act concerning multiple cheque dishonors. Claims of unfair trial procedures were presented by the accused.
Findings of Court:
Dismissal of revision petition affirmed the trial court's decision, affirming the proper exercise of discretion regarding the interim compensation direction set forth under the N.I. Act.
Issues: Proper exercise of judicial discretion under Section 143-A of the N.I. Act and claim of legal infirmities in the trial court's decision.
Ratio Decidendi: The court reiterated that provisions under Section 143-A of the N.I. Act permit discretion in awarding interim compensation based on circumstances without an advanced stage trial - important statutory presumptions favoring complainants must be respected.
Result: Criminal Revision Petition dismissed.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. interim compensation arguments initiated. (Para 1 , 2) |
ORAL ORDER
This petition by the accused in C.C.No.8054/2021 is directed against the impugned order dated 31.07.2023 passed by the VI Addl. Small Causes Judge, A.C.M.M., Bengaluru under Section 143-A of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 directing the petitioner to deposit 5% of the cheque amount and subsequent impugned order dated 30.12.2024 passed by the Sessions Court in Crl.R.P.No.574/2023 (Annexure-C) dismissing the revision petition filed by the petitioner.
2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the material on record.
3. A perusal of the material on record will indicate that in the aforesaid proceedings under Section 138 of NI Act, respondent filed an application under Section 143-A seeking direction to the petitioner-accused to deposit interim compensation and for other releifs. The said application was allowed by the trial Court by the impugned order dated 31.07.2023 by holding as under:
"1. Learned counsel for the complainant filed this second successive application U/sec 143A of N.I. Act seeking for an order and direction to accused to deposit the interim compensation for the reasons stated in the application.
2. Accused has not filed objection to the instant IA, however, he has filed objections to previous application contending that, I.A. is not maintainable and case is barred by limitation.
3. Heard arguments. Perused the material placed on record.
4. This is a private complaint against the accused for the offence punishable U/sec 138 of NI Act. This court has issued summons to accused on 02.09.2021. That on 09.03.2022 the accused put appearance before the court through her counsel and enlarged on bail on executing personal bond with cash surety. Plea and 313 statement of the accused has already been recorded on 09.03.2022. That on 09.03.2022 learned counsel for the complainant has filed previous application u/Sec.143-A of N.I Act and subsequent application i.e., the application in hand was filed on 21.02.2023 seeking an order for interim compensation.
5. The earlier application filed by the complainant was kept in abeyance for 3 months and directed the accused to complete the cross-examination of Pw:1 within said period. As counsel for accused has failed to commence the cross examination of witness, counsel for complainant has requested the court to pass an appropriate order on IA.
6. Perused the decision of Hon’ble Apex Court of Karnataka at Bengaluru reported in Crlp.No.6878/2019 in a case between Usha T.R. and Sri. B.H. Venkatachalaiah and Hon’ble Apex court of Madras reported in Crl.O.P.Nos.15438 and 15440 of 2019 and Crl.M.P.No.7576 and 7578 of 2019 ( L.G.R. Enterprises and Another Vs. P. Anbazhagan ).
7. Hon’ble High Court of Karnataka and Madras, in the above case it is held that, whenever the trial court exercises its jurisdiction U/Sec.143A (1) of the Act, it shall record reasons as to why it directs the accused person to pay the interim compensation to complainant. The reasons may be varied. For instance, (1) The accused person would have absconded for a longtime and thereby would have protracted the proceedings or (2) The accused person would have intentionally evaded service for a long time and only after repeated attempts he appears before the court, or (3) The enforceable debt or liability in a case, is borne out by overwhelming materials which the accused person could not on the face of it deny or, (4) Where the accused person accepts the debt or liability partly, or (5) Where the accused person does not cross-examine the witnesses and keeps on dragging with the proceedings by filing one petition after another, or (6) The accused person absconds and by virtue of non-bailable warrant he is secured and brought before the Court after a long time, or (7) He files a recall non-bailable warrant petition after a long time and the court while considering his petition for recalling the non-bailable warrant can invok
