IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT INDORE BEFORE HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE GAJENDRA SINGH

rd

ON THE 3 OF DECEMBER, 2025 CRIMINAL REVISION No. 2645 of 2025 SMT ASHRITA JAIN Versus AJIT SINGH PANWAR Appearance:

Shri Vivek Kumar Markan - Advocate for the petitioner.

WITH CRIMINAL REVISION No. 2674 of 2025 ASHRITA JAIN Versus AJIT SINGH PANWAR Appearance:

Shri Vivek Kumar Markan - Advocate for the petitioner.

WITH CRIMINAL REVISION No. 2649 of 2025 SMT ASHRITA JAIN Versus AJIT SINGH PANWAR Appearance:

Shri Vivek Kumar Markan - Advocate for the petitioner.

WITH CRIMINAL REVISION No. 2651 of 2025 SMT ASHRITA JAIN Versus AJIT SINGH PANWAR Appearance:

Shri Vivek Kumar Markan - Advocate for the petitioner.

WITH CRIMINAL REVISION No. 2661 of 2025 SMT ASHRITA JAIN Versus AJIT SINGH PANWAR Appearance:

Shri Vivek Kumar Markan - Advocate for the petitioner.

WITH CRIMINAL REVISION No. 2673 of 2025 ASHRITA JAIN Versus AJIT SINGH PANWAR Appearance:

Shri Vivek Kumar Markan - Advocate for the petitioner.

ORDER These revision petitions are preferred being aggrieved by order dated

27.03.2025 in SC NIA No.27/2022, SC NIA No.87/2022, SC NIA No.28/2022, SC NIA No.29/2022, SC NIA No.86/2022, SC NIA No.85/2022 wherein the revision petitioner/accused have been ordered to pay 20% of the cheque amount under section 143A of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 as interim compensation by JMFC, Dewas.

2. Facts in brief are that aforementioned SC NIA cases are filed alleging dishonour of cheque issued by revision petitioner and non payment of cheque amount within statutory period after service of notice.

3. Revision petitioner was ordered to pay 20% of the cheque amount as interim compensation. Challenging the impugned orders these criminal revision are preferred on the ground that there was a transaction for purchase of agricultural land for a consideration of Rs.60 lacs. The consideration amount were paid but blank cheques were lying with the respondents. After three years of completing the transactions the complaint has been filed by misusing the blank cheques. Trial court has dismissed the objections of the revision petitioner/accused on the ground that prima facie it transpires that cheques were issued by the revision petitioner/accused for consideration of executed sale deed.

4. Challenging the impugned orders these criminal revisions have been preferred. Material brought on record discloses that on 29.03.2019 a sale deed was executed by husband of the revision petitioner/accused for a consideration of Rs.60 lacs Annexure-P/1 dated 01.04.2019 have to be brought on record that has been purported to be executed by the husband of the revision petitioner/accused and respondent. As per para-11 of the agreement dated 01.04.2019 cheques have to be returned to the revision petitioners that includes the disputed cheques on the basis of which the application has been filed.

5. In the Rakesh Ranjan Vs. State of Jharkhand (2024) SCC Online SC

329 it is held that power under section 143-A (1) of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 is discretionary and not mandatory. Apex Court has laid down the factors to be considered by court when exercise of discretionary powers and the factors are being reproduced below:-

"Factors to be considered by the Court while exercising discretion

1. Prima facie evaluation: The Court said that while dealing with an application under Section 143-A of the N.I. Act, 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 under Section 143-A(1). The presumption under Section 139 of the N.I. Act, by itself, is no ground to direct the payment of interim compensation. The reason is that the presumption is rebuttable. A direction to pay interim compensation can be issued, only if the complainant makes a prima facie case.

2. Financial distress of the accused: The fact that the accused is in financial distress can also be considered. The Court said