Himachal Pradesh High Court
Sh. Mahender Kumar Pathak vs Tejraj Surana on 18 December, 2021
Author: Sandeep Sharma
Bench: Sandeep Sharma
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
.
ON THE 18th DAY OF DECEMBER, 2021
BEFORE
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP SHARMA
CRIMINAL MISC. PETITION (MAIN) U/S 482 CRPC No.700 OF 2021
Between:
SH. MAHENDER KUMAR PATHAK,
S/O SH. SANT RAM,
R/O 4/1, BATEL,
TEHSIL ARKI
DISTRICT SOLAN, H.P.
...PETITIONER
(BY MR. MOHAR SINGH
ADVOCATE)
AND
SMT. RAMANJEET CHADHA,
W/O SH. AMARJEET SINGH CHANDHA,
R/O SHANTI NIWAS, NEW TOTU,
POWER HOUSE SHIMLA, H.P.
....RESPONDENT
(NEMO)
Whether approved for reporting?. Yes.
This petition coming on for orders this day, the Court passed the following:
::: Downloaded on - 31/01/2022 23:27:32 :::CIS
2
ORDER
.
Having regard to the nature of order proposed to be passed in the instant case, this Court sees no necessity to issue notice to the respondent, who in the event of notice being issued, shall be unnecessarily burdened to engage a lawyer to defend her before this Court.
2. Instant petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India read with Section 482 of Cr.PC, lays challenge to order dated 22.10.2021, titled as Smt. Ramanjeet Chadha v. Sh. Mahender Kumar Pathak, whereby the learned court below while allowing application under Section 145(2) of the Negotiable Instruments Act (in short, 'the Act'), having been filed by the petitioner-accused (hereinafter, 'accused'), also directed him to deposit interim compensation to the tune of Rs. 42,600/- i.e. equivalent to 15% of the amount in cheque, within a period of sixty days.
3. Precise question, which needs to be adjudicated in the present case, is "whether the provisions of Section 143-A of the Act are prospective in operation and same can be applied to the proceedings, which were pending adjudication prior to introduction of the aforesaid provision in the statute books."
4. Grouse of the petitioner is that since the aforesaid provision came to be inserted by way of Amendment Act No. 20 of 2018, learned ::: Downloaded on - 31/01/2022 23:27:32 :::CIS 3 Court below has erred in directing the accused to pay an interim .
compensation amounting to Rs.45,000/- in the proceedings, which were initiated at the behest of the respondent-complainant (hereinafter referred to as 'the complainant') on 25.4.2018.
5. Case of the complainant is that in January, 2016, he lent sum of Rs.4.00 lac to the accused and out of the aforesaid amount, accused returned Rs.1,16,000/-, but qua the remaining amount, issued cheque bearing No. 212804 dated 20.12.2018, amounting to Rs. 2,84,000/-
payable at PNB, Totu, Shimla, HP. Since aforesaid cheque was dishonoured on account of insufficient funds and accused failed to make the payment despite having received the legal notice, complainant instituted a complaint under Section 138 of the Act on 25.4.2018. In the aforesaid case, court exercising power under Section 143A of the Act, directed the accused to pay interim compensation of Rs. 42,600/- and as such, he has approached this Court in the instant proceedings.
6. Issue, as has been raised in the instant petition, stands already decided by this Court vide judgment dated 13.11.2019, in Cr.MMO No. 681 of 2019, titled Vinod Kumar v. Mukesh Kumar, wherein this Court while placing reliance upon the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in case titled G.J. Raja v. Tejraj Surana, 2019 (19) SCC 469, has ::: Downloaded on - 31/01/2022 23:27:32 :::CIS 4 held that Section 143-A is prospective in operation and provisions .
contained in the Section can be applied/invoked only in cases where offence under Section 138 of the Act was committed after introduction of Section 143 in the Statue Book. Relevant paras of the judgment rendered in Vinod Kumar's case (supra) read as under:-
"5.Leaving everything aside, S. 143A, whereby provision has been provided for payment of interim compensation during the pendency of proceedings under S.138 of the Act, came into force with effect from 1.9.2018, by way of Amending Act No. 20 of 2018.
6. Hon'ble Apex Court in case titled G.J. Raja vs. Tejraj Surana, Cr. Appeal No. 1160 of 2019, decided on 30.7.2019, has categorically held that S.143A is prospective in operation. Hon'ble Apex Court has categorically held in the aforesaid judgment that provisions of S.143A can be applied/invoked only in cases, wherein offence under S.138 was committed after introduction of S.143 in the Statute Book. Reference is made to following paras of aforesaid judgments:
"23. We must, however, advert to a decision of this Court in Surinder Singh Deswal and Ors. vs. Virender Gandhi where Section 148 of the Act which was also introduced by the same Amendment Act 20 of 2018 from 01.09.2018 was held by this Court to be retrospective in operation. As against Section 143A of the Act which applies at the trial stage that is even before the pronouncement of guilt or order of conviction, Section 148 of the Act applies at the appellate stage where the accused is already found guilty of the offence under Section 138 of the Act. It may be stated that there is no provision in Section 148 of the Act which is similar to 5 (2007) 13 SCC 492 6 (2019) 8 SCALE 445 Criminal Appeal No. 1160 of 2019 @ SLP(Crl.)No.3342 of 2019 G.J. Raja vs. Tejraj Surana Sub-Section (5) of Section 143A of the Act. However, as a matter of fact, no such provision akin to sub-section (5) of Section 143A was required as Sections 421 and 357 of the Code, which apply postconviction, are adequate to take care of such requirements. In that sense said Section 148 depends upon the existing machinery and principles already in existence and does not create any fresh disability of the nature similar to that created by Section 143A of the ::: Downloaded on - 31/01/2022 23:27:32 :::CIS 5 Act. Therefore, the decision of this Court in Surinder .
Singh Deswal5 stands on a different footing.
24. In the ultimate analysis, we hold Section 143A to be prospective in operation and that the provisions of said Section 143A can be applied or invoked only in cases where the offence under Section 138 of the Act was committed after the introduction of said Section 143A in the statute book. Consequently, the orders passed by the Trial Court as well as the High Court are required to be set aside. The money deposited by the Appellant, pursuant to the interim direction passed by this Court, shall be returned to the Appellant along with interest accrued thereon within two weeks from the date of this order."
7. Consequently, in view of above, impugned order dated 15.10.2019 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Arki, District Solan, Himachal Pradesh in Case No. 187/3 of 17, is set aside. Petition stands disposed of accordingly alongwith all pending applications."
7. It is quite apparent from the perusal of the aforesaid judgment passed by this court that interim compensation, if any, in terms of Section 143-A can only be granted in the cases, which came to be instituted after introduction of Section 143 in the Statute Book. Since in the case at hand, complainant instituted complaint under Section 138 of the Act, prior to 1.9.2018, by which time, amended Act had come into operation, order passed by the learned trial court, directing the accused to pay interim compensation, cannot be held to be valid.
8. Consequently, in view of the above, present petition is allowed and impugned order dated 22.10.2021, passed by the court below in Case No. 344/2018, titled Ramanjeet Chadha v. Sh. Mahender Kumar Pathak, in as much as it directed the accused to deposit the interim compensation, is ::: Downloaded on - 31/01/2022 23:27:32 :::CIS 6 quashed and set-aside. Present petition is disposed of alongwith pending .
applications, if any.
Copy dasti.
18th December, 2021 (Sandeep Sharma),
(manjit) Judge
r to
::: Downloaded on - 31/01/2022 23:27:32 :::CIS