IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK

CRLMC No. 4506 of 2025

An application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

--------------

Krushna Chandra Patra ..…. Petitioner

-versus-

Anil Kumar Muduli …… Opp. Party

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

For Petitioners : Mr. Bauri Bandhu Champatiry, Advocate

For Opp. Party : Mr. Siba Narayan Biswal

Additional Standing Counsel

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

CORAM:

HON’BLE MISS JUSTICE SAVITRI RATHO

JUDGMENT

14.11.2025

Savitri Ratho, J This application has been filed challenging the order

dated 25.08.2025 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Bhubaneswar in 1CC Case No. 5376 of 2023 rejecting the application of the Petitioner under Section 143-A of the Negotiable Instruments Act (in short, “NI Act”) to direct the accused- Opposite Party to deposit 20% of the cheque amount as interim

compensation.

CASE OF THE COMPLAINANT

2. The brief fact of the case is that, the Petitioner being the Complainant has filed the Complaint Case u/s 138 of NI Act before the Court of the learned JMFC (III), Bhubaneswar for realization of Rs. 18,00,000/- from the accused which the accused had taken as hand loan from the Petitioner in shape of cash with an assurance of repayment within three months. But the accused had not paid the amount within the time and after much persuasion the accused had issued the cheque bearing no.597293, Dated 25.08.2023 of Rs. 18,00,000/- of SBI, Saranakul Branch, near Ladu Baba temple, Dist: Nayagarh, which has been dishonored.

SUBMISSIONS

3. Mr. B. B. Champatiray, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the accused had taken a hand loan of Rs.18 lakhs from the Petitioner by way of cash with an assurance to re-pay the same within three months. But, he failed to return the amount and after much persuasion had issued a cheque bearing No. 597293 dated 25.08.2023 for Rs. 18 Lakh to the Petitioner which was dishonored on being presented. Summons was initially issued against the accused, but thereafter on account of his non-appearance of the accused, bailable warrant was issued on 22.12.2023. As the bailable warrant could not be executed, NBW has been issued against him on 19.06.2024. After great difficulty the Accused- Opposite Party was arrested on 30.09.2024 and produced before the executive Magistrate, Odagaon where he was released on bail with a condition to appear before the learned trial Court by 14.10.2024 but he did not appear before the trial Court, for which NBW was issued against on 19.11.2024 and a reminder was issued to the superintendent of Police, Nayagarh for execution of the Non- bailable warrant. The application filed by the Petitioner under Section 82 of the CrPC was rejected, but the Court again issued NBW against the Petitioner and notice to the bailer to appear in the Court on 22.03.2025. Thereafter, after execution of the NBW, the Petitioner has appeared before the Court of the learned JMFC-III, Bhubaneswar and was released on bail on 02.04.2025. The case was subsequently posted for personal appearance of the accused when the Petitioner filed the aforesaid application under Section

143-A of the NI Act.

4. Learned counsel for the Petitioner submits that in view of the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Rakesh Ranjan Srivastav vs. State of Jharkhand; 2024 INSC 205, the learned trial Court should have directed the Opposite Party to deposit 20% of the defaulted amount, but by an illegal order the learned trial Court has rejected the application by the impugned order.

IMPUGNED ORDER

5. Perused the order dated 25.08.2025. The learned trial Court has rejected the application under Section 143-A of the NI Act after considering the submissions and case of both sides and concluding that the defence of the accused is found prima facie more plausible than that of the complainant and that the accused is a poor JCB driver and not in a position to pay any amount JUDI