Delhi District Court
M/S Reckon Marketing Services vs Pankaj Kumar Arya on 11 November, 2025
DLSE010121752024
IN THE COURT OF SH. LOVLEEN ADDL. SESSIONS JUDGE-03
SAKET COURTS, NEW DELHI
CR Rev No. 712/2024
M/s. Reckon Marketing Services
Through Proprietor Mr. Niraj Kumar
D-8/A, 3rd floor,
Lajpat Nagar-II,
New Delhi-110024
........Revisionist
versus
1. PANKAJ KUMAR ARYA
S/o Pradeep Kumar Arya
Address: P-73, Sector-11
Noida, UP -201301.
.............Respondent
CR Rev No. 712/2024 M/s. Reckon Marketing Services vs Pankaj Kumar Arya 1/21
Date of institution : 22.11.2024
Date of Reserving judgment : 11.11.2025
Date of Pronouncement : 11.11.2025
JUDGMENT
1. This is a revision petition filed u/s 438 of BNSS, 2023 against the order dated 03.09.2024 passed by the court of Ld. Judicial Magistrate First Class, (NI Act), Digital Court-01, South-East District in CC No. 4154/2021 titled as "M/s. Reckon Marketing Services, through Proprietor Mr. Niraj Kumar Vs. Pankaj Kumar Arya" whereby an application moved by the revisionist herein for grant of interim compensation u/s 143 A NI Act was dismissed. The said complaint was filed by the revisionist against the respondent in respect of his grievance as to the dishonour of a cheque issued by the respondent herein in favour of the revisionist. For the sake of convenience the revisionist herein shall be referred to as 'the complainant' and the respondent herein shall be referred to as 'the accused'.
Grounds of Revision
2. The grounds for revision cited by the complainant are as under:-
16) Because Ld. Magistrate has failed to appreciate the directions and guidelines issued by Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the case of Rakesh Ranjan Shrivastava Vs. The State of Jharkhand And Another decided on 15th March, 2024 in Criminal Appeal No.741/2024 that:
"19. Subject to what is held earlier, the main conclusions CR Rev No. 712/2024 M/s. Reckon Marketing Services vs Pankaj Kumar Arya 2/21 can be summarised as follows:
c. The broad parameters for exercising the discretion under Section 143A are as follows:
i. The court will have to prima facie evaluate the merits of the case made out by the complainant and the merits of the defence pleaded by the accused in the reply to the application. The financial distress of the accused can also be a consideration.
ii. A direction to pay interim compensation can be issued, only if the complainant makes out a prima facie case. iii. If the defence of the accused is found to be prima facie plausible, the court may exercise discretion in refusing to grant interim compensation. iv. If the court concludes that a case is made out to grant interim compensation, it will also have to apply its mind to the quantum of interim compensation to be granted. While doing so, the Court will have to consider several factors such as the nature of the transaction, the relationship, if any, between the accused and the complainant, etc. v. There could be several other relevant factors in the peculiar facts of a given case, which cannot be exhaustively Bare reading of the law aforesaid law propounded by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India, it is crystal clear that award of interim. compensation shall be granted while considering below facts and law:
a. That Petitioner must have the Prima Facie case and in present case in hand promissory note and security cheque for Rs 1.6 crores were placed on record by Petitioner to substantiate his Prima Facie claim as well as claim on merits;
b. There is likelihood that adjudication of main Cheque Bounce case will take substantial time;
CR Rev No. 712/2024 M/s. Reckon Marketing Services vs Pankaj Kumar Arya 3/21 c. Dilatory tactics on part of Respondent/Accused Persons to delay & derail the adjudication process. d. Along with other factors.
a. PRIMA FACIE CASE
17) Because Ld. Magistrate Court has grossly failed to appreciate that Respondent/Accused Person had admitted its liability on with respect to issuance of Cheque by way of his conduct in issuing the:
a. security cheque(s) amounting to Rs.1,60,00,000 (One Crore Sixty Lakh only) as security and promise to pay his total outstanding debt and liability accrued as on April, 2018;
b. Accused had issued promissory note dated 9th August, 2019 along with his duly signed copy of pan card as his ID proof;
Which shows that even a bare looking at the documents produced by the Petitioner/Complainant that he has the Prima Facie case against the Respondent/Accused Person. Further, Petitioner have also placed on record the forensic report showing the authenticity of Promissory note and receipt of Legal Notice.
However, Ld. Magistrate had committed grave errors dismissing the Section 143A NI Act Application of the Petitioner vide order dated 03.09.2024 in mechanical manners, without application of mind and without any logical explanation hence, on this ground only present Revision Petition is liable to be allowed.
CR Rev No. 712/2024 M/s. Reckon Marketing Services vs Pankaj Kumar Arya 4/21
18) Because Ld. Magistrate has grossly failed to appreciate that that Accused person in his statement recorded under section 294 of CrPC read with Sec 251 of CrPC has admitted below facts:
a. Accused Person has taken the services of Complainant for event management for wedding;
b. That there is outstanding debt & liability; c. Accused Person has admitted that he had paid Rs. 1 crore 40 lakhs in cash however, he no records regarding the payments;
d. Cheque in question was given by Accused Person to Complainant and Cheque has been signed by Accused Person.
c. However, Ld. Magistrate had committed grave errors dismissing the Section 143A NI Act Application of the Petitioner vide order dated 03.09.2024 in mechanical manners, without application of mind and without any logical explanation hence, on this ground only present Revision Petition is liable to be allowed.
19) Because Ld. Magistrate has grossly failed to appreciate that Respondent/Accused Person has intentionally not disclosed before this Hon'ble this Court that Complainant has also organized Ring ceremony for Accused Person somewhere in February, 2015 and total cost for organizing the Ring Ceremony was Rs.
1,58,23,528.00 plus 15% professional fees. Complainant in page no 49 of the Complainant has disclosed the facts CR Rev No. 712/2024 M/s. Reckon Marketing Services vs Pankaj Kumar Arya 5/21 that out of total outstanding due (without interest) against Ring and Wedding ceremony i.e. Rs. 2,64,76,933, Complainant had paid only Rs. 1,04,58,620 in cash from 2015 till April, 2018.
However, Ld. Magistrate had committed grave errors dismissing the Section 143A NI Act Application of the Petitioner vide order dated 03.09.2024 in mechanical manners, without application of mind and without any logical explanation hence, on this ground only present Revision Petition is liable to be allowed.
20) Because Ld. Magistrate has grossly failed to appreciate that Petitioner/Complainant in his Complaint also disclosed the facts that in year, 2018 Accused Person gave security cheques for Amount of Rs. 1,60,00,000.00( i.c. Rs. 2,64,76,933 1,04,58,620 Rs. 1,60,18,313) (ref:
page no 4546 of complaint). However, when Respondent/ Accused person was not able to make the payments even after giving security Cheques for Amount of Rs. 1,60,00,000.00, Accused Person Gave the promissory note dated 09.08.20219 admitting the total outstanding liability of Amount of Rs. 1,60,00,000.00 along with interest @1.5% per month. Then, in November, 2020 after first lockdown, gave Cheque of Rs 2,20,00,00 (Cheque dishonoured) against Accused Person's total outstanding debt and liabilities. Therefore, Complainant's case is admitted case and doesn't requires any other evidence to prove or disapprove. However, Ld. CR Rev No. 712/2024 M/s. Reckon Marketing Services vs Pankaj Kumar Arya 6/21 Magistrate had committed grave errors dismissing the Section 143A NI Act Application of the Petitioner vide order dated 03.09.2024 in mechanical manners, without application of mind and without any logical explanation hence, on this ground only present Revision Petition is liable to be allowed.
b. DIALTORY TACTICS ON PART OF RESPONDENT/ACCUSED PERSON
21) Because Ld. Magistrate has grossly failed to appreciate that the summon to the Accused Person to appear before this Hon'ble Court was issued on 03.02.2022. Thereafter, matter was listed on 15.03.2022 before this Hon'ble Court however, this Hon'ble Court was on leave therefore, matter was listed on 05.04.2022. Later on, Respondent/Accused Person made his appearance on 05.04.2022 through his legal counsel. On the said date of hearing accused was admitted to bail subject to furnishing of Personal Bond of Rs 2,00,000 and surety of Rs. 2,00,000 cach and Accused Person has taken time to furnish the Personal Bond of Rs 2,00,000 and surety of Rs. 2,00,000. On the said date of hearing Accused Person has orally admitted that he owes debt liability towards Complainant and requested Hon'ble this Court to refer the matter for mediation for settlement. Same has been recorded by the Hon'ble Court in their order dated 05.04.2022 which is produced herein as under:
CR Rev No. 712/2024 M/s. Reckon Marketing Services vs Pankaj Kumar Arya 7/21 "Ld. Counsel for accused submits that there is scope of settlement in the present case and accused wishes to settle the same. Accordingly, Hon'ble Court had referred the matter to mediation and directed parties to mandatory appear before mediator failing which cost shall be imposed.
22) However, it is humbly submitted here that accused person had only appeared on 08.4.2022 and thereafter failed to appear before ld. Mediator on 11.04.2022, 22.04.2022 and 29.04.2022 and same had been recorded by Ld. Mediator whereas Complainant and his counsel had appeared before Ld. Mediator very diligently.
Therefore, the act of Accused person had been lackadaisical and just to waste the precious time of judicial system using dilatory tactics. However, Ld. MM Court had committed grave errors dismissing the Section 143A NI Act Application of the Petitioner vide order dated 03.09.2024 in mechanical manners, without application of mind and without any logical explanation hence, on this ground only present Revision Petition is liable to be allowed.
23) Because Ld. Magistrate has grossly failed to appreciate that on 26.07.2022, Sec 251 CrPC notice was issued to Accused person and his statement under section 294 CrPC has been recorded and it was directed to the Accused person to return the signed copy of Sec 251 CrPC notice within 1 week from 26.07.2022 i.c. date of CR Rev No. 712/2024 M/s. Reckon Marketing Services vs Pankaj Kumar Arya 8/21 directions. However, Accused Person has returned the signed copy of Sec 251 CrPC notice only on 14.09.2022 that too after mentioning by counsel of Complainant regarding the conduct of the Accused person. It is pertinent to submit here that Respondent /Accused Person had filed the physical copy of Bail Bond and Surety of Rs 2,00,000.00 each only on 20.09.2022. So, it took almost 9 months to Accused Person to submit the Bail Bond and Surety. Which clearly shows the dilatory tactics on part of Accused Person hence, on this ground only present Revision Petition is liable to be allowed.
24) All the aforesaid acts on part of accused shows that accused person is adopting the dilatory tactics, dragging of proceedings with frivolous applications absenting themselves seeking continuous adjournments causing delay and grave prejudice to the case of complainant. However, Ld. MM Court had committed grave errors dismissing the Section 143A NI Act Application of the Petitioner vide order dated 03.09.2024 in mechanical manners, without application of mind and without any logical explanation hence, on this ground only present Revision Petition is liable to be allowed.
25) Because Ld. Magistrate has grossly failed to appreciate that Respondent/Accused person in order to delay the adjudicatory proceedings have also filed CrL Transfer Petition no 29 of 2024 on 15.04.2024 (when the order for section 143A application was reserved) and CR Rev No. 712/2024 M/s. Reckon Marketing Services vs Pankaj Kumar Arya 9/21 notice of the said application was issued for 27.04.2024. Ld CMM court has called all the records from Ld. MM court which has further caused delay in adjudication process.
c. OTHER FACTORS TO DECIDE THE SECTION 143A APPLICATION:
26) Because Ld. Magistrate has failed to appreciate that Petition is pending since, year 2021 and Petitioner's section 143A Application for Interim Compensation was pending before Ld. Magistrate since Dec, 2022 and Petitioner case has progressed in very lukewarm speed so far. Looking at the stake slow progress of the case and financial constraints faced by Petitioner, Ld. Magistrate would have allowed Interim Compensation.
27) Because Ld. Magistrate has failed to appreciate that Respondent/Accused person have unequivocally admitted its liability to the debt to Petitioner in the Promissory Note dated 09.08.2019.
28) Because Ld. Magistrate has failed to appreciate that Hon'ble Karnataka High Court in its judgement dated 01.06.2022 passed in Criminal Petition No 632 of 2022 has prescribed two fold criteria for awarding Interim Compensation under Section 143A of NI Act
1) In case where accused person do not cooperate with the Courts and adopts dilatory tactics, dragging of proceedings with frivolous applications absenting themselves seeking continuous adjournments causing CR Rev No. 712/2024 M/s. Reckon Marketing Services vs Pankaj Kumar Arya 10/21 delay and grave prejudice to the case of complainant; 2) Conduct of Accused person shall be kept in mid while awarding compensation where Cheque Amount are on cores.
29) Because Ld. Magistrate has failed to appreciate that Petitioner /Complainant has sent the legal notice to Accused Person on 09.02.2021 however, Respondent/Accused Person had not replied to the Legal Notice sent and impliedly given the consent.
30) Because Ld. Magistrate has granted Interim Compensation @10% in similar cheque bounce case i.e. Case no CC NI Act 620/2021; Panjak Saluja Vs Pankaj Kumar Arya order dated 16.10.2024, which clearly demonstrate that Ld. Magistrate has not applied its mind to the facts of the case.
31) For the reasons that the Ld. Magistrate erred while exercising its judicial power.
32) For the reasons that the Ld. Magistrate has failed to apply its judicial mind over the present matter. d. JURISDICTION
33) Section 143A of the Act is a complete code by itself qua an application to be filed for interim compensation. The genesis and closure of the application happens under Section 143A of the Act itself. Therefore, it terminates the application. It is humbly submitted here that an order passed on an application filed under Section 143A of the Act, is not interlocutory order, but an intermediate order, CR Rev No. 712/2024 M/s. Reckon Marketing Services vs Pankaj Kumar Arya 11/21 as the application is filed, and the application is closed, under the said provision, determining the rights and liabilities of parties qua the application and revision petition before the Court of Sessions on the order passed by the learned Magistrate under Section 143A either allowing the application, or rejecting it, would be maintainable for the aggrieved party, be be it the complainant or the accused to approach.
3. It is prayed in the petition by the complainant that the impugned order dated 03.09.2024 may be set aside and interim compensation may be awarded. Reliance is placed upon the observations made in Rakesh Ranjan Shrivastava Vs. The State of Jharkhand and Ors. MANU/SC/0204/2024 and Rajeev Kumar Vs. The State of NCT of Delhi & Anr. 2024:DHC:7074.
Submissions of Accused
4. It is submitted on behalf of the accused that the Ld. Magistrate has correctly passed the impugned order as a triable issue is indeed available in the matter. Moreover, the accused has not indulged in any dilatory tactics, which disentitles the complainant from seeking any interim compensation. It is further submitted that the debt is time barred, which factor also operates against the complainant. Reliance is placed upon the observations made in K. Hymavathi Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh and Another 2023 SCC OnLine SC 1128 and Rakesh Ranjan Shrivastava Vs. The State of Jharkhand and Ors. MANU/SC/0204/2024.
CR Rev No. 712/2024 M/s. Reckon Marketing Services vs Pankaj Kumar Arya 12/21 DISCUSSION Law Governing The Issue
5. Before proceeding to adjudicate the matter, it would be appropriate to reproduce the provision made U/s 143A of Negotiable Instruments Act for a better understanding of the issue. The relevant provision is reproduced herein below:
"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 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 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 (2 of 1974).
(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 (2 of 1974), shall be reduced by the amount paid or recovered as interim compensation under this section."
CR Rev No. 712/2024 M/s. Reckon Marketing Services vs Pankaj Kumar Arya 13/21
6. In JSB CARGO and Freight forwarder (P) Ltd vs State 2021 SCC Online Del 5425 at para no. 62, it has been categorically held by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court that the said provision under Section 143A of Negotiable Instruments Act is directory and not mandatory. In Ashwin Ashokrao Karokar Vs. Laxmikant Govind Joshi Crl. (Writ Petition No. 48/2022) date of decision 07.07.2022, the same issue was dealt with by Hon'ble High Court of Bombay and it was held that the provision u/s. 143A of Negotiable Instruments Act is directory and not mandatory. Recently, the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India, speaking through Rakesh Ranjan Shrivastava Vs. State of Jharkhand and Anr. 2024 SCC Online SC 309, has also ruled that the exercise of power u/s 143A(1) of Negotiable Instruments Act is discretionary and that the provision is directory and not mandatory in nature.
7. Here it would be appropriate to reproduce the principles laid down w.r.t. exercise of jurisdiction u/s 143A Negotiable Instruments Act regard in L.G.R. Enterprises & Ors. Vs. P. Anbazhagan 2019 SSC online Madras 38991. The relevant extract is as under:
"8. Therefore, whenever the trial Court exercises its jurisdiction under Section143A(1) of the Act, it shall record reasons as to why it directs the accused person (drawer of the cheque) to pay the interim compensation to the complainant. The reasons may be varied. For instance,
- the accused person would have absconded for a longtime and thereby would have protracted the proceedings or
- the accused person would have intentionally evaded service for a long time and only after repeated attempts, appears before the Court, or
- the enforceable debt or liability in a case, is borne out by overwhelming materials which the accused person could not on the face of it deny or
- where the accused person accepts the debt or liability partly or
- where the accused person does not cross examine the witnesses CR Rev No. 712/2024 M/s. Reckon Marketing Services vs Pankaj Kumar Arya 14/21 and keeps on dragging with the proceedings by filing one petition after another or
- the accused person absonds and by virtue of a non-bailable warrant he is secured and brought before the Court after a long time or
- he files a recall non-bailable warrant petition after a long time and the Court while considering his petition for recalling the non- bailable warrant can invoke Section 143A(1) of the Act. This list is not exhaustive and it is more illustrative as to the various circumstances under which the trial Court will be justified in exercising its jurisdiction under Section 143A(1) of the Act, by directing the accused person to pay the interim compensation of 20% to the complainant."
8. We may also note observations made by Hon'ble Bombay High Court in Ashwin Ashokrao (Supra) which are to the effect that grant of interim compensation, would be at the discretion of the Court, based upon consideration of various factors, such as (a) Whether the requirement of Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act were fulfilled, (b) Whether the pleadings disclosed the drawing of presumption (c) Whether proceedings were within limitation and (d) Whether prima facie a legal debt or liability was disclosed from the complaint or the notice of demand preceding it, and factors as such.
9. In Rakesh Ranjan Shrivastava (Supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India has also laid down the broad parameters for exercising jurisdiction u/s 143A of Negotiable Instruments Act. The same are as under:-
i. The Court will have to prima facie evaluate the merits of the case made out by the complainant and the merits of the defence pleaded by the accused in the reply to the application. The financial distress of the accused can also be a consideration.
CR Rev No. 712/2024 M/s. Reckon Marketing Services vs Pankaj Kumar Arya 15/21 ii. A direction to pay interim compensation can be issued, only if the complainant makes out a prima facie case.
iii. If the defence of the accused is found to be prima facie plausible, the Court may exercise discretion in refusing to grant interim compensation.
iv. If the Court concludes that a case is made out to grant interim compensation, it will also have to apply its mind to the quantum of interim compensation to be granted. While doing so, the Court will have to consider several factors such as the nature of the transaction, the relationship, if any, between the accused and the complainant, etc. v. There could be several other relevant factors in the peculiar facts of a given case, which cannot be exhaustively stated. The parameters stated above are not exhaustive.
FACTS OF THE CASE
10. The facts of the case have been correctly noted by the Ld. Magistrate at para 2 of the impugned order. The same is reproduced below for ready reference:-
"....................................................................................................
2. Brief facts of the case as per the complaint are that the accused person had approached the complainant in the year 2014 to organise the event of ring ceremony and orally agreed on payment of professional service fees @ 15 % of the total cost of ring ceremony. Further, the accused had promised the complainant to engage his services for Wedding ceremony.
CR Rev No. 712/2024 M/s. Reckon Marketing Services vs Pankaj Kumar Arya 16/21 Accordingly, the complainant had organised and planned the ring ceremony held on 18.01.2015 and the total cost for organising the ring ceremony was 1,58,23,420/-. Thereafter, the complainant was assigned Wedding card work including designing, printing, production, delivery and chocolates etc. Total estimated cost for the said work was 14,00,000/-. That, in the year 2016 the complainant had organised and planned Wedding ceremony consisting of various events and functions, total cost incurred in organising the Wedding event was Rs. 72,00,000/-. That the accused had been making the small partial payments of the total expenditure and cost incurred to the complainant till March 2018. That on complainant's repeated telephonic follow ups accused sought 6-8 months extension to make the entire payments as he was facing financial constraints, however, he issued security cheque amounting to Rs. 1,60,00,000/- and promised to pay his total outstanding liability as on April 2018. The accused had issued a promissory note dated 09th August,2019 along with his duly signed copy of pan card as his ID to discharge his outstanding liability i.e. 1.5 % interest on principal amount of Rs. 1,60,00,000/-. That the complainant had again met the accused in August- September, 2020, in the said meeting accused and the complainant had agreed on final settlement amount of Rs. 2,20,00,000/- and accordingly had issued the cheque bearing no. 070580 dated 18.11.2020 in discharge of his outstanding liability. The complainant presented the cheque with the bank, the said cheque got dishonored vide return memo dated 18.01.2021 for CR Rev No. 712/2024 M/s. Reckon Marketing Services vs Pankaj Kumar Arya 17/21 the reason " Account Blocked". Thereafter, a legal notice dated 06.02.2021 was issued under section 138 to the accused person, thereby intimating the accused person about the dishonor of the cheque. Despite receipt of legal notice dated 06.02.2021, the accused person has failed to make any payment to the complainant. Consequently, the present complaint was filed by the complainant against the accused person under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881....................................... ...................................................................................................."
11. During the course of the proceedings, the above mentioned application u/s 143 A NI Act was moved by the complainant and vide the impugned order dated 03.09.2024, the Ld. Magistrate was pleased to dismiss the same. The reasoning given by the Ld. Trial Court while passing the impugned order is reproduced below for ready reference:
"................................................................................................... .....................................................................................................
15. The legislature has amended Act, 1881, which came into force on 01.09.2018 with the aim to secure the interest of the complainant along with increasing the efficacy and expediency of proceedings under Section 138 of the Act, 1881. Section 143 A of the Act, 1881 stipulates that under certain stages of proceedings under Section 138 of the Act, 1881, the Court may order for the drawer to make payment upto 20% of the cheque amount during the pendency of the matter. The intent behind this provision is to provide aid to the complainant during the pendency of proceedings under Section 138 of the Act, where CR Rev No. 712/2024 M/s. Reckon Marketing Services vs Pankaj Kumar Arya 18/21 he is already suffering double-edged sword of loss of receivables by dishonour of the cheque and the subsequent legal costs in pursuing claim and offences. These amendments would reduce pendency in courts because of the deterrent effect on the masses along ensuring certainty of process that was very much lacking in the past, especially enforced at key stages of the proceedings under the Act.
16. The main object behind introduction of section 143A NI Act was to check dilatory tactics adopted by accused persons and losses suffered by complainants due to undue delay in 138 NI Act matters occasioned by the accused persons. In the present case, perusal of record shows that the accused has, so far, been participating diligently in the proceedings. Perusal of record also shows that after issuance of summons vide order dated 03.02.2022 returnable for 15.03.2022, the accused appeared through his counsel on the said date. The accused was admitted to bail on 05.04.2022 and the Notice u/s 251 was framed on 26.07.2022, the matter was then listed for CE on 20.09.2022 at 2 PM, however on the said date CE was adjourned at the request of Ld. Counsel for the complainant. Now, the matter is at the stage of CE.
17. In the present case, the accused has denied having any liability towards the complainant and have claimed that he had paid the amount of Rs. 1,40,00,000/- to the complainant and that the cheque in question was a security cheque given to the complainant. The accused has been participating in the proceedings diligently and not trying to delay the trial.
CR Rev No. 712/2024 M/s. Reckon Marketing Services vs Pankaj Kumar Arya 19/21 Therefore, I find no compelling reason to exercise my discretion for grant of interim compensation to the complainant.
18. In view of the aforesaid discussion and for above mentioned reasons, this application moved on behalf of the complainant seeking interim compensation to the tune of 20 % of the cheque amount, is hereby dismissed. ............................... ..................................................................................................... ...................................................................................................."
Decision
12. Perusal of the impugned order reflects that the Ld. Magistrate has correctly recorded the facts of the case put up by complainant at Para 2 (reproduced above). Perusal of the TCR also reflects that complainant has placed on record bills / invoices / receipts with respect to the expenditure incurred by him at the relevant time. Complainant has also placed on record copies of photographs corroborating his claim against the accused. It would be appropriate to note here that the accused has admitted that he availed the services of complainant at the time of his marriage (reference - 'defence' of accused recorded at the time of framing of notice u/s 251 Cr.P.C.). That being so, this Court could safely hold that the parties are not at dispute with respect to the above aspects.
12. Proceeding further, this Court notes that at the time of framing of notice u/s 251 Cr.P.C., inter alia, accused claims : (i) that he issued the cheque in question as a 'security', (ii) that he did not fill any particulars in the cheque in question except the signatures and, (iii) that he has already paid Rs.1.40 crores to the complainant. Here, it would be appropriate to CR Rev No. 712/2024 M/s. Reckon Marketing Services vs Pankaj Kumar Arya 20/21 point out that the accused has clearly averred in his reply (filed to the application moved by complainant u/s 143A NI Act) that the cheque in question was handed over to the complainant at the time of his marriage (in the year 2016) but the same was misused by the complainant in the year 2020. There is nothing in the TCR to outrightly hold that the above defences raised by the accused, are completely devoid of any merits. In the facts and circumstances, this court must observe that although the defence raised by the accused is still to be established on record, still the same seem sufficient at this stage to rule that a triable issue is indeed made out in the present case. That apart, the TCR does not reflect that the accused has attempted to delay the disposal of the matter on merits. The adjournments sought by accused seem to be justified in view of the reasons recorded in the relevant ordersheets of TCR. As such, this Court does not find any reasonable cause to depart from the opinion rendered by the Ld. Magistrate in the impugned order dated 03.09.2024. The order passed by Ld. Magistrate does not seem to be arbitrary, perverse or irrational nor does it reflect any jurisdictional error which occasioned any injustice in the matter. The present petition is devoid of any merits and is hereby dismissed.
13. TCR be sent back along with the copy of this judgment. Revision file Digitally be consigned to Record Room as per rules. signed by LOVLEEN Dictated and Announced LOVLEEN Date:
2025.11.12 in open Court on 11.11.2025 10:26:31 +0530 (Lovleen) ASJ-03 (South East) Saket Courts, Delhi CR Rev No. 712/2024 M/s. Reckon Marketing Services vs Pankaj Kumar Arya 21/21