IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM-M-68274-2025 Date of decision : 04.12.2025 Roshan @ Roshan Singh .....Petitioner versus Janak Singh .....Respondent CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH BHARDWAJ Present :- Mr. Garvit Mittal, Advocate for the petitioner.

RAJESH BHARDWAJ , J. (Oral)

1. Prayer in the present petition has been made for quashing of impugned order dated 28.07.2025 (Annexure P-6) passed by learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Karnal whereby application (Annexure P- 4) under Section 143-A of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 filed by the respondent/complainant has been ordered to be allowed thereby directing the petitioner to deposit 10% of the cheque amount as interim compensation in an illegal and arbitrary manner.

2. Succinctly, the facts of the present case are that the respondent had filed a complaint under Sections 138 & 142 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (for short “the Act”) against the petitioner. As per the allegations made, the petitioner in order to discharge his legal liability had issued a cheque bearing No.897173 dated 08.05.2023 for an amount of Rs.8,30,000/- drawn on Punjab National Bank in favour of the respondent-complainant. However, on presentation, the same was dishonored with the remarks “advice not received”. Though, the respondent issued legal notice to the petitioner but he failed to pay the amount and, thus, the petitioner was liable to be prosecuted. The learned trial Court, on summoning the petitioner, proceeded with the trial. During the pendency of the complaint, the respondent/complainant had filed an application under Section 143-A of NI Act for grant of interim compensation which was allowed vide order dated 28.07.2025, passed by learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Karnal, whereby the petitioner was directed to deposit 10% of the cheque amount as interim compensation to the respondent/complainant. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner is before this Court by way of filing of present petition.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner has never issued any cheque to the respondent rather the same was issued to one Firm, namely, Jai Kumar Commission Agents as a security cheque and the firm in connivance with the respondent has defrauded the petitioner. He submits that learned trial Court has allowed the application filed under Section 143-A of NI Act, by misinterpreting and misconstruing the provisions. He submits that the imposition of condition of paying 10% as interim compensation is violative of the law settled and thus, the same deserves to be set aside. He submits that the learned trial Court has not applied its judicious mind in passing the impugned order. He submits that the petitioner has a statutory right which cannot be curtailed by imposing any condition. It is submitted that the order passed by learned JMIC, Karnal is non-speaking and assigns no reason for imposing the condition of payment of 10% as interim compensation. He submits that as per the provisions of Section 143-A of the NI Act, the imposition of conditions are not mandatory. To substantiate his arguments, he relied upon the judgment passed in ‘Rakesh Ranjan Shrivastava Vs. The State of Jharkhand and another’ and has submitted that as per the law settled, provisions of Section 143-A of the Act are not mandatory in nature and thus, the same being discretionary in nature, the trial Court was legally bound not to pass the order in a mechanical manner. He has submitted that as per the law settled, the Magistrate who is vested with powers under Section 143-A of the Act is to exercise the power vested in him judiciously after recording the plea of the accused but learned trial Court passed the order without application of his judicious mind. He thus, submits that the impugned order having been passed in violation of the mandate of the law settled (supra), deserves to be set aside.

4. On hearing counsel for the petitioner and perusing the record, it is ap