AJAY TYAGI Vs. B9 BEVERAGES

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The issue before this Court is triggered by an application under Sec. 143A, Negotiable Instruments Act ('NI Act') moved by the complainant that sought interim compensation of Rs.5.00 Lacs i.e. 20% of Rs.25.00 Lacs, the total value of the dishonored cheque. The Ld. MM vide Order dtd. 21/8/2020 heard the complainant and the accused and allowed the said application directing the accused to pay the sum of Rs.5.00 Lakhs to the complainant within a period of 2 months. The accused filed a Revision Petition for setting aside this Order contending inter alia that unless and until complainant evidence is not completed the Ld. MM could not have decided the Application u/S 143A, NI Act and that the Ld. MM had failed to give any substantial reason while allowing the Application. The Ld. ASJ dismissed the Revision vide order dtd. 25/8/2022 which is impugned in this petition before this Court.

(2.) The Ld. Counsel for the Petitioner contends that the reason stated in the application filed by the complainant was that they were in financial difficulty and that does not come within the ambit of S. 143A, NI Act scope and purview. He relied upon the judgements of the Courts at Madras and Karnataka viz. V. Mahadevan Iyer v. P. Anbazhagan, 2019 SCC OnLine Mad 38927 and Vijaya v. Shekhapappa, 2022 SCC OnLine Kar 515, where it was held that there has to be application of mind in allowing S. 143A, NI Act application. He further submitted that the conduct of the accused post the order of the Ld. MM had also been adverted to by the Ld. ASJ which would not be relevant in order for the revisional court to decide on the correctness of the Court below. He further contended that at the stage of s. 251 CrPC the accused is not liable to give documents in support of his answer to whether he pleads guilty or not. Further, he states that in his answer to the notice u/s 251 CrPC, he had stated that the cheque bears a signature, but the rest of the particulars on the cheque had not been filled by him. As per the Counsel for the petitioner, the complainant evidence had not been initiated as yet, which fact was refuted by the Respondent who stated that pre-summoning evidence was complete, notice had been issued and fixed for the cross examination of the complainant.

(3.) The Respondent's counsel further contented that s. 143A, NI Act is mainly interim compensation which is without prejudice to the right of the accused to be refunded these amounts in case the accused was held as not guilty. He submitted that the possibility of s.143A, NI Act interim compensation was triggered where the accused pleaded not guilty as per the language of the provision. The purpose of this provision was to allow some recompense to the complainant if the trial was getting unnecessarily dragged. Supporting this, he submitted that his application itself had stated that the case was instituted in 2019, the matter was posted for mediation in January 2020, the mediation failed since the accused refused to pay any amount and then the accused adopted dilatory tactics and has also failed to appear before the Ld. MM until non-bailable warrants were issued. He also pointed out that the accused has taken a contradictory stance, as recorded in the impugned order, in that while he admits the signature on the cheque, he states, on the one hand that he made payment to the accused to the tune of Rs.6,82,981.00, a figure which has no basis and has not been supported by any specific detail or context; and on the other hand states that he has to make more payments to the complainant as also wished to settle the matter.