An order denying interim compensation under Section 143A of the NI Act must be based on evidence on record; reliance on non-existent medical records constitutes non-application of mind, justifying the exercise of inherent powers to set aside the order for reconsideration.

THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 24.09.2026, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

Dated this the 24th day of September, 2026

ORDER

The petitioner is the complainant in S.T.No.15/2025 on the file of the Court of the Judicial First Class Magistrate-IV, Punalur, ( Trial Court, for brevity), which has been filed by the petitioner against the 2nd respondent for an offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 ( N.I. Act, for brevity). Subsequent to the filing of the complaint, the petitioner filed C.M.P. No.1/2026 under Section 143(A) of the N.I. Act to direct the 2nd respondent to deposit 20% of the cheque amount as interim compensation as envisaged under Section 143(A) of the N.I. Act. The application was opposed by the 2nd respondent, inter alia, stating that he is facing severe financial burden and is striving hard for his survival. Therefore, he is not in a position to deposit any amount as sought for in the application. However, by the impugned Annexure-IV order, the Trial Court, dismissed the application, on the finding that there was serious dispute with regard to the source of fund of the transaction and the 2nd respondent has produced medical certificate and treatment records to indicate that he is suffering from right lumbar radiculopathy and is under treatment for the same, and further that in view of the law laid down in Rakesh Ranjan Srivastava v. State of Jharkand [2024 (2 )KHC 481], it is the absolute discretion of the court to order interim compensation. Annexure-IV order is erroneous and wrong.

Hence, this petition.

2. The 2nd respondent has filed his objection , inter alia, contending that the Trial Court has expressly recorded that the 2nd respondent had produced medical certificate and treatment records and had also assessed his financial burden before passing the impugned order. The passing of the impugned order does not tantamount to the adjudication of the complaint. Moreover, the Trial Court has also observed that the complaint can be adjudicated and disposed in a time bound manner. Hence, there is no illegality or error in the impugned order.

3. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned Public Prosecutor and the learned counsel for the 2nd respondent. On a careful analysis of the application filed by the petitioner, the objection filed by the 2nd respondent and the impugned order passed by the Trial Court, I find that one of the reasons which led to the passing of the impugned order is that the 2nd respondent had produced the medical certificate and treatment records to indicate that he is suffering from right lumbar radiculopathy and is under treatment for the same. In fact, the 2nd respondent did not have a case either in the objection filed in the application or in the objection filed in the present petition, that he is suffering from any disease. This finding is something which is not on record and apparently seems to be a mistake committed by the Trial Court, Thus, I am satisfied that there is non-application of mind in considering the application. Hence, I am inclined to exercise the inherent powers of this Court under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 and direct the Trial Court to re- consider the matter afresh, after affording both sides an opportunity of being heard.

In the aforesaid circumstances, this petition is allowed, by setting aside Annexure-IV order and directing the Trial Court to re-consider the application and the objection filed by the parties and decide the application in accordance with law and as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within an outer time limit of 30 days from the date of production of a copy of this order.