Pawan Kumar Verma vs Indian Wine Traders Jammu

Rajnesh Oswal, J

Order dated 14.05.2024 passed by the court of Special Mobile Municipal, Magistrate Jammu(for short trial court), whereby, the petitioner has been directed to deposit 10% of the cheque amounting to Rs. 1.50 lacs as interim compensation in favour of the respondent, has been impugned by the petitioner on the ground that the learned trial court has not applied its mind, particularly when, the petitioner had denied his liability and signatures on the cheque, in his statement recorded under Section 251 CrPC

Mr. Sandeep Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the learned trial court has not followed the mandate of the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Rakesh Ranjan Shrivastava versus State of Jharkhand, 2024 INSC 205, while passing the order impugned.

Heard Mr. Sandeep Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner.

The subject matter of the complaint pending before the learned trial court are three cheques amounting to Rs. 5.00 Lacs each, which the respondent claims to have been issued during the course of business transaction.

In the statement of the petitioner recorded under Section 251 CrPC, the petitioner has not only denied the liability but also has refused to have issued these cheques as the same do not bear his signatures.

The cheques in question have been dishonored not on account of signature mismatch but on account of insufficient funds.

So, this Court does not find that the petitioner has made out a prima facie case for not directing him to pay interim compensation in terms of Section 143-A of the Negotiable Instrument Act.

It was urged by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the financial distress of the payee is also required to be considered while awarding any interim compensation invoking the provisions of Section 143-A of the Act (Supra), which has not been considered by the learned trial court while passing the order impugned. The learned trial court could have directed the petitioner to pay 20% of the total amount of the cheques which has not been done in the instant case.

Rather the learned trial court has directed the petitioner to pay only 10% of the total amount of the cheques which are the subject matter of the complaint pending before the learned trial court.

In view of the above, this Court does not find any illegality in the order passed by the learned trial court directing the petitioner to pay 10% of the total amount of the cheques involved in the complaint, as such, the present petition is found to be misconceived and the same is dismissed.