ETERNAL MOTOR PVT. LTD. Vs. KAILASH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Miscellaneous Criminal Case has been filed by the petitioners under Sec. 482 of the Cr.P.C., against the order dtd. 20/1/2024, passed by the IX Additional Sessions, Indore in CRR no.665/2023 whereby, the revisional court affirmed the order dtd. 3/8/2023, passed by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Indore in SC NIA no.7627/2022 whereby, the application filed by the complainant under Sec. 143-A of the Negotiable Instrument Act, 1881 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act of 1881") has been allowed.

(2.) In brief, the facts of the case are that a complaint has been filed by the respondent-Kailash under Sec. 138 of the Act of 1881, on account of dishonour of cheque of Rs.1,00,00,000.00 (Rupees One Crore), and the case is at the stage of recording of evidence. In the said proceedings, an application was filed by the complainant/respondent under Sec. 143-A of the Act of 1881, seeking 20% of the amount of cheque as interim compensation which was allowed by the Judicial Magistrate vide its order dtd. 3/8/2023, while holding that the defence set up by the petitioner is a disputed question of fact and can only be decided during the trial court. When the aforesaid order was challenged by the petitioner before the revisional court, the learned IX Additional Sessions Judge, Indore vide its impugned order dtd. 20/1/2024, has mainly considered the provisions of Sec. 143-A of the Act of 1881, and while relying upon the decision rendered by the Chhattisgarh High Court in the case of Rajesh Soni S/o P.R. Soni vs. Mukesh Verma S/o Late Shri J.P. Verma {passed in Criminal Appeal No.562/2021 dtd. 30/6/2021}, which has also been approved by the Division Bench of this High Court vide its order dtd. 28/10/2022, in Writ Petition No. 23357/2022 {Sanjay Kumar Jain vs. Union of India and others}, has directed that the provisions of Sec. 143-A of the Act of 1881 are mandatory and the petitioners are liable to pay Rs.20,00,000.00 (Rupees Twenty Lakhs only) which is 20% of the cheque amount as the interim compensation.

(3.) Shri Abhijeet Dube, learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that in the recent decision rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Rakesh Ranjan Shrivastava vs. State of Jharkhand and another {passed in Cr.A.no. 741 of 2024 dtd. 15/3/2024} it has already been held that the provisions of Sec. 143-A of the Act of 1881 are discretionary and the word "may" used in the provision cannot be construed as "shall". Thus, it is submitted that the impugned order be set aside, and the matter be remanded back to the revisional court so that the court may pass the order on merits.