ORDER

1.This petition has been filed by the petitioner under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. against the order dated 07.11.2023, passed by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Shujalpur, District Shajapur in SC(NIA)357/2022, whereby, the learned Judge of the trial Court has directed the petitioner to pay 20% of cheque amount, which comes to Rs.1,70,000/-.

2. Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the impugned order is liable to be set aside only on the ground of the same being cryptic in nature as no reason has been assigned by the learned Judge of the trial Court in passing the aforesaid order by invoking Section 143A of the N.I. Act, 1881.

3. Counsel for the respondent, on the other hand, has opposed the prayer.

4. Having considered the rival submissions, and on perusal of the documents filed on record including the impugned order dated 07.11.2023, it is found that so far as the application under Section 143A of the Act, 1881 is concerned, the same has been allowed and the petitioner is directed to pay 20% of the cheque amount of Rs.8,50,000/-. However, there is no reason assigned by the learned Judge of the trial Court in passing the aforesaid order, whereas in the case of Rakesh Ranjan Shrivastava Vs. The State of Jharkhand and another (Cr.A. No.741/2024 dated 15.03.2024) the Supreme Court has issued the following guidelines in para 19:-

“19 a. The exercise of power under sub-section (1) of Section 143A is discretionary. The provision is directory and not mandatory. The word “may” used in the provision cannot be construed as “shall.”.

b. While deciding the prayer made under Section 143A, the Court must record brief reasons indicating consideration of all relevant factors.

c. The broad parameters for exercising the discretion under Section 143A are as follows:

i. The Court will have to prima facie evaluate the merits of the case made out by the complainant and the merits of the defence pleaded by the accused in the reply to the application. The financial distress of the accused can also be a consideration.

ii. A direction to pay interim compensation can be issued, only if the complainant makes out a prima facie case.

iii. If the defence of the accused is found to be prima facie plausible, the Court may exercise discretion in refusing to grant interim compensation.

iv. If the Court concludes that a case is made out to grant interim compensation, it will also have to apply its mind to the quantum of interim compensation to be granted. While doing so, the Court will have to consider several factors such as the nature of the transaction, the relationship, if any, between the accused and the complainant, etc.

v. There could be several other relevant factors in the peculiar facts of a given case, which cannot be exhaustively stated. The parameters stated above are not exhaustive.

(emphasis supplied)

5. On perusal of the same, it is apparent as the power under Section 143A of the Act, 1881 is discretionary, but the aforesaid discretion can be applied only when the complainant makes out the prima facie case, and the Court is also required to apply its mind as to the quantum of compensation to be granted.

6. Consequently, this Court is inclined to allow the petition without adverting the merits of the case, and by setting aside the order passed by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Shujalpur, District Shajapur on 07.11.2023, the matter is remanded back to the JMFC, with a direction to decide the application filed under Section 143A of the Act, 1881 afresh, in accordance with the guiding principles as enunciated by the Supreme Court in the case of Rakesh Ranjan Shrivastava (supra) . (SUBODH ABHYANKAR) JUDGE Shruti