271-1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision: 08.05.2025 Manjinder Singh ... Petitioner versus State of Punjab and another ... Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARPREET SINGH BRAR Present: Mr. Gurcharan Dass, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Rishabh Singla, AAG Punjab.

***

HARPREET SINGH BRAR, J.(Oral)

1. The present petition has been preferred under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter ‘Cr.P.C.’) against the order dated 24.11.2021(Annexure P-5) passed by learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Khanna vide which the petitioner has been directed to deposit 20% of the cheque amount as interim compensation under Section 143-A of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘NI Act’), in the case stemming from NACT case No.70 dated 27.01.2020 filed under Section 138 of the NI Act, titled as ‘M/s Sohan Lal Trading Company vs.

Manjinder Singh.’

2. Briefly, the facts, as alleged, are that the petitioner approached respondent No.2-complainant to sell his crops through it. The petitioner had taken cash advance multiple times from respondent No.2, after making due entries in the record books. Respondent No.2 had also made payment to M/s Sandeep Fertilizers and M/s Khalsa Oil Store for the purchase of fertilizer and diesel, respectively, made by the petitioner. As on 31.12.2019, an amount of Rs. 7,43,698.79/- stood outstanding against the petitioner. In order to discharge his legal liability, the petitioner issued a cheque bearing No.000010 dated 04.01.2020 for an amount of Rs. 7,43,650/- in favour of respondent No.2. However, the same was dishonoured on presentation for encashment vide memo dated 06.01.2020, with the remarks- ‘funds insufficient.’ The requisite payment was not made in spite of serving a legal notice to the petitioner, which caused respondent No.2 to file the complaint(supra). Subsequently, respondent No.2 moved an application under Section 143-A of the NI Act, seeking 20% of the cheque amount which was allowed vide impugned order dated 24.11.2021 (Annexure P-5).

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner inter alia contends that the petitioner had given a detailed reply to the application filed by respondent No.2 under Section 143-A NI Act stating that neither did the petitioner issue the disputed cheque nor does it bear his signatures. Further, respondent No.2 has not entered the complete details of the sale of crops in the record books. Learned trial Court has also erred in not considering the six J forms(Annexures P-7 to P-12) and the report of the handwriting expert- Dr. Inderjit Singh annexed by the petitioner with his reply. Moreover, the provision of Section 143-A NI Act is discretionary in nature as held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Rakesh Ranjan Shrivastava vs. The State of Jharkhand and another (2024) 4 SCC 419.

4. Having heard learned counsel for the petitioner and after perusing the record with his able assistance, it transpires that the petitioner has been asked to deposit 20% of cheque amount as interim compensation. Admittedly, the complaint(supra) was instituted on 27.01.2020 while the amendment introducing Section 143-A NI Act came into effect on 01.09.2018, making it applicable in the present case.

5. A study of Section 143-A NI Act is called for in order to justly adjudicate upon the matter at hand. The same is reproduced below:

143A. Power to direct interim compensation.—

(1) Notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, the Court trying an offence under section 138 may order the drawer of the cheque to pay interim compensation to the complainant—

(a) in a summary trial or a summons case, where he pleads not guilty to the accusation made in the complaint; and (b) in any other case, upon framing of charge.

(2) The interim compensation under sub-section (1) shall not exceed twenty per cent. of the amount of the cheque.

(3) The interim compensation shall be paid within sixty days from the date of the