Supreme Court Lays Down Comprehensive Guidelines To Prevent Misuse Of POCSO Act In Matrimonial Disputes Land Reforms Act | Joint Application For Pre-Emption By Adjoining Landowners Is Maintainable: Calcutta High Court Ocular Evidence In Conflict With Medical Findings Or Withholding Of Natural Witnesses Vitiates Prosecution Case: Allahabad High Court Compassionate Appointment Claim Must Be Decided Based On Policy Prevalent At Time Of Death: Bombay High Court Section 376 IPC | Failure To Prove Initial Dishonest Intent In Marriage Promise Renders Sexual Relationship Consensual: Allahabad High Court Prolonged Incarceration And Delay In Trial Are Valid Grounds To Invoke Constitutional Right To Speedy Trial Under Article 21 In UAPA Cases: Delhi High Court Motor Vehicles Act | Insurer Liable To Pay And Recover Compensation For Gratuitous Passengers In Goods Vehicles: Gujarat High Court Proof Of Demand And Acceptance Under PC Act Must Be Evaluated Based On Preponderance Of Probabilities In Rebuttal: Kerala High Court Tenancy Claim | Mere Possession Without Lawful Foundation Or Identification Of Tenanted Land Cannot Confer Occupancy Rights: Karnataka High Court 125 CrPC | Maintenance Cannot Be Evaded By Claiming Physical Disability If Conduct Indicates Concealment Of Financial Means: Kerala High Court M.P. Municipal Corporation Act | Locus Standi Under Section 307(5) Limited To Residents Of The Municipal Area: Madhya Pradesh High Court Writ Jurisdiction | Belated Challenge To Disciplinary Action After Superannuation Amounts To Laches; Petition Dismissed: Punjab & Haryana High Court Order 39 Rule 1 & 2 CPC | Mere Pendency Of Partition Suit Does Not Entitle Plaintiff To Injunction Restraining Reconstruction Of Residential Building: Kerala High Court Not A Mere Breach Of Contract: Telangana High Court Refuses To Quash FIR In ₹73 Crore Garment Investment Fraud Section 482 CrPC | High Court Quashes FIR Following Private Compromise In Non-Heinous Dispute Arising From Civil Conflict Mere Involvement In Criminal Case Does Not Constitute Moral Turpitude To Deny Public Appointment: Telangana High Court Pendency Of Investigation Cannot Be A Blanket Ground To Deny Permission For Foreign Travel: Rajasthan High Court Fraudulent Representation By Counsel Vitiates Ex Parte Decree: Punjab & Haryana High Court Holds Professional Misconduct As Evidence Of Fraud Writ Jurisdiction | Suppression Of Material Facts Regarding Pending Criminal And Departmental Proceedings Renders Petition Liable To Dismissal: Orissa High Court Banking Fraud | Failure Of Bank Official To Conduct Physical Inspection Of Collateral Property Constitutes Criminal Conspiracy And Abuse Of Official Position: Madras High Court Fraud Vitiates Judicial Proceedings: Judgment Obtained Through Misrepresentation And Conflict Of Interest Cannot Be Sustained, Holds Punjab And Haryana High Court Discovery Under Section 27 Evidence Act From Publicly Accessible Place Requires Caution: Supreme Court Mere Recovery Of Articles At Instance Of Accused Without Independent Corroboration Cannot Sustain Conviction: Supreme Court DNA Profile Must Be Supported By Other Conclusive Evidence To Prove Guilt: Supreme Court

Supreme Court Quashes Order on Deposit of Interim Compensation in Dishonored Cheque Case

04 September 2024 10:30 AM

By: Admin


In a significant ruling, the Supreme Court of India has quashed an order directing the petitioner to deposit 10% of the amount of a dishonored cheque as interim compensation. The judgment, delivered by a bench comprising Hon’ble Mr. Justice S. Ravindra Bhat and Hon’ble Mr. Justice Aravind Kumar, addressed the tenability of the trial court’s order under Section 143A of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881.

The court held that the order was in violation of Section 143A(1) of the Act, which stipulates that interim compensation can only be granted when the accused pleads not guilty to the accusation in the complaint. The order in question was issued before the accused had entered a plea, thus infringing upon the statutory provision.

Quoting from the judgment, the bench stated, “As is evident from a plain reading of Section 143A(1)(a), it is only where the accused ‘pleads not guilty’ of the accusation made in the complaint that interim compensation under Section 143A(1) can be granted. In the present case, the Magistrate did not issue the order after the plea of the accused was entered, but before that i.e. after he answered the summons.”

The court emphasized that since the trial had reached an advanced stage, no further orders were made. However, it clarified that the complainant could seek appropriate relief, including under Section 143A, at any stage of the trial, thus upholding the complainant’s right to claim relief.

This judgment highlights the importance of adhering to procedural requirements and statutory provisions while granting interim compensation in dishonored cheque cases. It sets a precedent for future cases and provides clarity on the applicability of Section 143A at different stages of the trial.

The decision of the Supreme Court carries significant implications for the enforcement of the Negotiable Instruments Act and ensures fairness in the proceedings related to dishonored cheques.

Date of Decision: 7th July 2023

PAWAN BHASIN  vs STATE OF U.P. & ANR.

Latest Legal News