THE HON’BLE SMT. JUSTICE TIRUMALA DEVI EADA CRIMINAL PETITION No.7327 OF 2025

ORDER:

This Criminal Petition is filed to quash the order dated

01.04.2025 passed in Criminal Revision Petition No.07 of 2024 by the learned VIII Additional District & Sessions Judge, Ranga Reddy District at L.B.Nagar (for short “revisional Court”), confirming the order dated 03.11.2023 in Crl.M.P.No.427 of 2023 in STC NI No.542 of 2021 by the learned Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Special (Mobile) PCR Act – cum – IV Additional Junior Civil Judge – cum – IV Additional Metropolitan Magistrate, Ranga Reddy District at L.B.Nagar (for short ‘the trial Court’).

2. Heard the submissions of Sri P.Vinod Lal, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri S.Someshwar Rao, learned counsel for respondent No.1 and Sri Jithender Rao Veeramalla, learned Additional Public Prosecutor for respondent No.2 – State.

3. The learned petitioner counsel has submitted that the interim compensation under Section 143A of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (for short “NI Act”) is a discretionary relief and that the learned Judge has not assigned any reasons while granting interim compensation in this case. He further argued that the guidelines laid down by the Apex Court in Rakesh Ranjan Shrivastava v. State of Jharkhand, 2024 (4) SCC 419 have been overlooked by the trial Court. He further submitted that the so called complainant in the NI case was a worker under the accused and taking undue advantage he has stolen the cheques while he was assigned with the work of taking care of his business and cases at Hyderabad. Therefore, he raised his defense and he objected his signature also but still the trial Court went ahead in granting the interim compensation without getting into the trial, hence, he prayed to set aside the orders passed by the trial Court.

4. The learned counsel for respondent No.1 has submitted that there are three other cases filed in different Courts and in all the three cases, the interim compensation was not granted but in this case only it was allowed and that the complainant could make out his prima facie case as he has disclosed his capacity to lend money to the petitioner herein. Though the accused is his employer, it does not mean to say that he has not taken money from him as hand loan. He further stated that the trial Court has granted only a meager amount of Rs.3,00,000/- while the accused is due to an extent of around Rs.85,00,000/- to be paid to the complainant. He further

submitted that it is a reasoned order passed by the trial Court, hence, he prayed to dismiss the petition.

5. Perused the record.

6. The petitioner herein is the accused in the case filed under 138 of NI Act and is aggrieved by the interim compensation granted by the trial Court.

7. Section 143A of the NI Act is extracted hereunder for the sake of reference:

“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 order under subsection (1), or within such further period not exceeding thirty days as may be directed by the Court on sufficient cause being shown by the drawer of the cheque.

(4) If the drawer of the cheque is acquitted, the Court shall direct the complainant to repay to the drawer the amount of interim compensation, with interest at the bank rate as published by the Reserve Bank of India, prevalent at the beginning of the relevant financial year, within sixty days from the date of the order, or within such further period not exceeding thirty