Orissa High Court
Sukanti Senapati vs Babita Senapati …… Opposite Party on 24 June, 2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
CRLMC No.1171 of 2021
An application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
--------------
Sukanti Senapati ...... Petitioner
-versus-
Babita Senapati ...... Opposite Party
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
For Petitioner : Mr. Pradeep Kumar Sahoo, Advocate
For Opp. Party : Mr. B.S. Tripathy, Advocate
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
CORAM:
HON'BLE MISS JUSTICE SAVITRI RATHO
JUDGMENT
24.06.2025
Savitri Ratho, J. This CRLMC has been filed challenging the order dated
25.03.2021 passed by the learned Sub Divisional Judicial
Magistrate (Sadar), Cuttack ( in short “SDJM / Magistrate”), in
1.C.C. No. 257 of 2020 directing the accused – petitioner
(hereinafter “the petitioner”) to pay the interim compensation
amounting to Rs.1,54,500/- (10% of the cheque amount of
Rs.15,45,000/-) on or before 21.05.2021 in exercise of power under
Section 143-A of Negotiable Instruments Act (in short “the N.I.
CRLMC No. 1171 of 2021 Page 1 of 13
Act”) to the complainant – opposite party (hereinafter “the
opp.party”).
CASE OF THE COMPLAINANT
2. The complainant’s case in brief is that the petitioner
being the owner of a patch of land in village Bharatipur under Puri
Tahasil, which she had purchased from the original title holders.
Due to want of money, she sold a portion of the said land, i.e.,
Ac.0.04 dec. 420 sq.kadi to the opp.party by executing a registered
sale deed dt.29.11.2016 for a total consideration amount of
Rs.4,84,000/- and handed over possession of the land to her.
After transfer of the aforesaid property, the State Govt. filed
Second Appeal No.19/2017 before this Court against the
confirming judgment in respect of that land. While the said second
appeal was pending, the opp.party approached the petitioner, who
is a pardanashin lady and took three blank signed cheques from her
in the year 2017 with the impression to refund the same after her
title is confirmed by this Hon’ble Court in the aforesaid second
appeal. Thereafter, vide order dt.05.12.2018, the said second
appeal filed by the State was dismissed and the right, title, interest
and possession of the vendors of the petitioner as well as the
opp.party was confirmed and the order passed in the second appeal
CRLMC No. 1171 of 2021 Page 2 of 13
became final. But the opp.party did not return the blank signed
cheques to the petitioner. While matter stood thus, in the year
2020, the local administration started a project for construction of
village road and a bridge and proposed to construct it on the land of
the petitioner including the land purchased by the opp.party. In
such factual background, the opp.party through her husband
pressurized the petitioner and in August, 2020, she obtained the
signature of the petitioner on blank stamp paper purchased by her
and with a mala fide intention converted the signed paper to an
agreement between the parties. The opp.party also by misutilizing
the previously obtained old signed blank bank cheques in the year,
2017 and with the help of the subsequent stamp paper, put a total
amount of Rs.15,45,000/- in three cheques and deposited the said
cheques in the bank in order to make out a case u/s.138 of the N.I.
Act against the petitioner. The old cheques of different dates were
deposited by the opp.party in the bank at Cuttack on one date and
all the cheques returned without clearance as the said bank account
of the petitioner became dormant for want of transactions for a
long time. After issuing notice to the petitioner through her
counsel, the opp.party filed a case before the learned S.D.J.M.
CRLMC No. 1171 of 2021 Page 3 of 13
(Sadar), Cuttack i.e. 1.C.C. No.257 of 2020 under Section 138 of
the N.I. Act claiming Rs.15,45,000/-.
PETITION UNDER SECTION – 143 A OF THE N.I. ACT
3. The petitioner had entered appearance in the case through her
counsel filed a petition u/s.205 Cr.P.C. for dispensing with her
personal appearance. The opp.party filed her objection to the
petition filed u/s.205 Cr.P.C. and in the form of a petition
purported to be under section 143-A of N.I. Act. The petitioner
filed her preliminary objection as well as additional objection and
contested the prayer made by the opp.party for grant of interim
compensation u/s.143 A of the NI Act taking into consideration the
facts and circumstance of this case and also produced the copy of
the registered sale deed in favour of the opp.party and also cited the
law laid down in the matter, but the learned S.D.J.M. reserved the
petition for orders.
ORDER OF THE LEARNED SDJM COURT
4. The learned SDJM vide order dt.25.03.2021 allowed the
petition filed u/s.143-A of the Act and directed the petitioner to pay
an amount of Rs.1,54,500/- to the opp.party as interim
compensation which is 10% of the cheque amount.
CRLMC No. 1171 of 2021 Page 4 of 13
SUBMISSIONS
5. I have heard Mr. Pradeep Kumar Sahoo, learned counsel
for the petitioner and Mr. B.S. Tripathy, learned counsel appearing
on behalf of the opposite party-complainant.
6. Relying on the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of
Rakesh Ranjan Shrivastava vrs. State of Jharkhand and Another:
(2024) 4 SCC 419, Mr. Pradeep Kumar Sahoo, learned counsel for
the petitioner submitted that the impugned order is liable for
interference as:-
i) the learned trial court has directed for payment of compensation
interpreting the word ‘may’ in Section 143-A of the NI Act to be as
‘shall’ which as per the decision of the Supreme Court is directory
and not mandatory; and
ii) the application under Section 143-A of the N.I. Act has been
decided without considering the merits of the case.
7. Mr. B.S. Tripathy, learned counsel appearing on behalf of
the opposite party-complainant relied on the decision of the
Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of G.J. Raja vrs. Tejraj
Surana: (2019) 19 SCC 469, and submitted that as per the
provisions of Section 143-A in the N.I. Act , the accused could be
made to pay or deposit interim compensation even before his
CRLMC No. 1171 of 2021 Page 5 of 13
conviction and that even before pronouncement of his guilt , the
interim compensation can be recovered with the aid of State
machinery as arrears of land revenue.
8. Both counsel have submitted that as the case is pending
since 2020, whatever the decision of this Court on payment of
interim compensation, a direction may be issued to the learned
SDJM (Sadar), Cuttack for disposing of 1.C.C. No. 257 of 2020
within a stipulated time.
STATUTORY PROVISIONS
9. The provisions necessary for deciding this application are
Section- 138 and 143-A of the N.I. Act, which are extracted
below:-
“Section 138- Dishonour of cheque for insufficiency, etc., of
funds in the account:- Where any cheque drawn by a person
on an account maintained by him with a banker for payment
of any amount of money to another person from out of that
account for the discharge, in whole or in part, of any debt or
other liability, is returned by the bank unpaid, either because
of the amount of money standing to the credit of that account
is insufficient to honour the cheque or that it exceeds the
amount arranged to be paid from that account by an
agreement made with that bank, such person shall be deemed
to have committed an offence and shall, without prejudice to
any other provisions of this Act, be punished withCRLMC No. 1171 of 2021 Page 6 of 13
imprisonment for a term which may be extended to two years,
or with fine which may extend to twice the amount of the
cheque, or with both:
Provided that nothing contained in this section shall
apply unless-
(a) the cheque has been presented to the bank within a
period of six months from the date on which it is drawn or
within the period of its validity, whichever is earlier;
(b) the payee or the holder in due course of the cheque,
as the case may be, makes a demand for the payment of the
said amount of money by giving a notice in writing, to the
drawer of the cheque, [within thirty days of the receipt of
information by him from the bank regarding the return of the
cheque as unpaid; and
(c) the drawer of such cheque fails to make the payment
of the said amount of money to the payee or, as the case may
be, to the holder in due course of the cheque, within fifteen
days of the receipt of the said notice.”
“Section 143-A-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 notCRLMC No. 1171 of 2021 Page 7 of 13
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 sub-section (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 days as may be directed by the Court on
sufficient cause being shown by the complainant.
(5) The interim compensation payable under this section may
be recovered as if it were a fine under section 421 of the Code
of Criminal Procedure, 1973.
(6) The amount of fine imposed under section 138 or the
amount of compensation awarded under section 357 of the
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, shall be reduced by the
amount paid or recovered as interim compensation under this
section.”
JUDICIAL PRONOUNCEMENTS
10. In the case of Rakesh Ranjan Shrivastava (supra), the
Supreme Court has held as follows:
“15. For recovery of the interim compensation, the
immovable or movable property of the accused can be sold byCRLMC No. 1171 of 2021 Page 8 of 13
the Collector. Thus, non-payment of interim compensation
fixed under Section 143-A has drastic consequences. To
recover the same, the accused may be deprived of his
immovable and movable property. If acquitted, he may get
back the money along with the interest as provided in sub-
section (4) of Section 143-A from the complainant. But, if his
movable or immovable property has been sold for recovery of
interim compensation, even if he is acquitted, he will not get
back his property.”
“18. In the case of Section 143-A, the power can be
exercised even before the accused is held guilty. Sub-section
(1) of Section 143-A provides for passing a drastic order for
payment of interim compensation against the accused in a
complaint under Section 138, even before any adjudication is
made on the guilt of the accused. The power can be exercised
at the threshold even before the evidence is recorded. If the
word “may” is interpreted as “shall”, it will have drastic
consequences as in every complaint under Section 138, the
accused will have to pay interim compensation up to 20% of
the cheque amount. Such an interpretation will be unjust and
contrary to the well-settled concept of fairness and justice. If
such an interpretation is made, the provision may expose
itself to the vice of manifest arbitrariness. The provision can
be held to be violative of Article 14 of the Constitution. In a
sense, sub-section (1) of Section 143-A provides for
penalising an accused even before his guilt is established.
19. Considering the drastic consequences of exercising the
power under Section 143-A and that also before the finding of
the guilt is recorded in the trial, the word “may” used in theCRLMC No. 1171 of 2021 Page 9 of 13
provision cannot be construed as “shall”. The provision will
have to be held as directory and not mandatory. Hence, we
have no manner of doubt that the word “may” used in Section
143-A, cannot be construed or interpreted as “shall”.
Therefore, the power under sub-section (1) of Section 143-A
is discretionary.”
In the case of G.J. Raja (supra), the Hon’ble Supreme Court
has held as follows:
“19. It must be stated that prior to the insertion of Section
143A in the Act there was no provision on the statute book
whereunder even before the pronouncement of the guilt of an
accused, or even before his conviction for the offence in
question, he could be made to pay or deposit interim
compensation. The imposition and consequential recovery of
fine or compensation either through the modality of Section
421 of the Code or Section 357 of the code could also arise
only after the person was found guilty of an offence. That was
the status of law which was sought to be changed by the
introduction of Section 143A in the Act. It now imposes a
liability that even before the pronouncement of his guilt or
order of conviction, the accused may, with the aid of State
machinery for recovery of the money as arrears of land
revenue, be forced to pay interim compensation. The person
would, therefore, be subjected to a new disability or
obligation. The situation is thus completely different from the
one which arose for consideration in Employees’ State
Insurance Corporation case.”
CRLMC No. 1171 of 2021 Page 10 of 13
ANALYSIS
11. After recording the provisions of Section – 143-A of the NI
Act and the submissions of the learned counsel, the learned SDJM
has allowed the application holding as follows: –
“It has not been provided in the Act that the Court is to see
whether there exists any legally enforceable debt or liability
for the accused towards the complainant at the time of
dealing with the petition u/s. 143(A) rather the existence of
legal liability is to be seen after taking evidence from both the
sides. In the present case trial has not yet commenced and the
disposal of the case may take some time. In order to provide
interim relief to the complainant I think it proper to grant
interim compensation to her. Moreover, it has been provided
that the accused shall be repaid the entire interim
compensation along with bank interest on the eve of acquittal
and therefore, I am of the opinion that the accused shall not
be prejudiced if he is directed to pay the interim
compensation amount”.
12. From this it is apparent that the learned SDJM has not
considered the merit of the case as the same was not required by
the NI Act. On the ground that disposal of the case may take a long
time and as the amount shall be repaid to the accused in the event
(typed as “eve” in the impugned order) of acquittal, no prejudice
would be caused to her, allowed the application.
CRLMC No. 1171 of 2021 Page 11 of 13
13. It has been held by the Supreme Court that the word “may”
used in the provision is directory and not mandatory and it cannot
be interpreted as “shall”. The Supreme Court has held that if such
an order for payment of compensation is passed before the accused
is found to be guilty, it would be contrary to the well-settled
concept of fairness and justice and it is likely to have drastic
consequences as the accused may have to sell his immovable and
movable property to comply with the order and on the event of his
acquittal and return of the amount, may not get back his property.
14. The legal principle that an accused is presumed to be
innocent until proven guilty, is well known. If direction for
payment of interim compensation under Section 143-A of the NI
Act is held to be mandatory, apart from being contrary to the above
legal principle, it may encourage unscrupulous persons to initiate
frivolous litigation in order to obtain an order of interim
compensation for their unjust enrichment. By the time the accused,
who may not be liable, is repaid the money after his acquittal, he
may have been ruined. So an order for payment for interim
compensation should not be passed for the mere asking and should
be passed only under exceptional circumstances.
CRLMC No. 1171 of 2021 Page 12 of 13
CONCLUSION
15. In view of the aforesaid discussion, the impugned order
dated 25.03.2021 passed in 1.CC. No.257 of 2020 by the learned
SDJM (S) Cuttack is set aside.
16. As the complaint case is of the year 2020, I do not consider
it necessary to direct the learned SDJM to reconsider the matter,
but consider that it would in the interest of justice to request the
learned trial court to dispose of the case expeditiously.
17. The learned Court in seisin over the matter, is requested to
make an endeavour to dispose of the complaint case expeditiously,
preferably by the end of November 2025, if there is no legal
impediment.
18. The CRLMC is accordingly allowed. The I.A. No.921 of
2021 is disposed of.
(Savitri Ratho)
Judge
Orissa High Court, Cuttack.
The 24th June, 2025/Puspa, P.A.
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
Signed by: PUSPANJALI MOHAPATRA
Designation: Personal Assistant
Reason: Authentication
Location: Orissa High Court
Date: 30-Jun-2025 19:19:38
CRLMC No. 1171 of 2021 Page 13 of 13