2025 (6) TMI 1082 - HC - Indian Laws

Dishonour of Cheque - Grant of interim compensation - power of the Court under Section 143A of the NI Act is directory in nature or mandatory - signatures on the settlement deed made by the petitioner were under coercion - HELD THAT - On a perusal of the Impugned Order it is evident that the prima facie view taken by the learned PD SJ is correct. The learned PD SJ has rightly observed that the petitioner has not lodged any complaint regarding him having to sign the said settlement agreement under coercion. Further all the cheques issued by the petitioner were post- dated cheques which could have been withheld on the instructions to the Banker of the petitioner. Therefore this Court is unable to accept this plea of the petitioner. The position of law is well settled that the power under Section 143 A is directory and not mandatory in nature and that the Court must record brief reasons stating consideration of all relevant factors. The learned PD SJ and the learned Trial Court have provided detailed and reasoned Order while granting the interim compensation which does not warrant any interference. Conclusion - i) The Revision Petition challenging the interim compensation order was rightly dismissed by the revisional authority. ii) The petitioner s defence of coercion and denial of liability was not prima facie plausible and was rightly rejected. iii) The Courts below properly exercised their discretion under Section 143A of the NI Act recording adequate reasons. Petition dismissed.

Summary

1. ISSUES PRESENTED and CONSIDERED

The core legal questions considered by the Court in this matter are:

- Whether the learned Principal District and Sessions Judge (PD&SJ) erred in dismissing the Revision Petition challenging the Interim Compensation Order passed under Section 143A of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (NI Act).

- Whether the power conferred under Section 143A(1) of the NI Act to grant interim compensation is mandatory or directory in nature.

- Whether the petitioner's defence regarding coercion in signing the settlement agreement dated 23.03.2021 and denial of liability was properly considered.

- Whether the Trial Court and the revisional authority properly applied the legal principles and recorded adequate reasons while awarding interim compensation.

- Whether the petitioner's financial incapacity, due to bank accounts being seized by the Income Tax Department, was a relevant factor to deny or reduce interim compensation.

- Whether the petitioner was denied a fair opportunity to lead defence evidence and cross-examine the complainant, thereby affecting the correctness of the impugned orders.

2. ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS

Issue 1: Nature of power under Section 143A of the NI Act (Mandatory or Directory)

Relevant legal framework and precedents: Section 143A of the NI Act empowers the Court to award interim compensation to the complainant in proceedings under Section 138 NI Act. The Supreme Court's recent decision in Rakesh Ranjan Shrivastava vs State of Jharkhand (2024) clarified that the exercise of power under Section 143A(1) is discretionary and directory, not mandatory. The Court must record brief reasons considering all relevant factors before granting interim compensation.

Court's interpretation and reasoning: The impugned order extensively quoted the Supreme Court's ruling, emphasizing that the word "may" in the provision cannot be construed as "shall." The Court outlined broad parameters for exercising discretion, including prima facie evaluation of complainant's and accused's contentions, financial distress of the accused, plausibility of defence, and quantum of compensation.

Application of law to facts: Both the Trial Court and the revisional authority applied these principles, recording detailed reasons for granting interim compensation. The Court found no flaw in the exercise of discretion or the reasons recorded.

Treatment of competing arguments: The petitioner argued that the Trial Court failed to record proper reasons and that the power was mandatory. The Court rejected this, holding that the authorities complied with the legal requirements.

Conclusion: The power under Section 143A is discretionary and directory. The Courts below correctly exercised this discretion with adequate reasons.

Issue 2: Validity of the settlement agreement and petitioner's defence of coercion

Relevant legal framework: The petitioner contended that the settlement agreement dated 23.03.2021 was signed under coercion and that he disputed any liability towards the respondent. The Court noted that no complaint or report was lodged by the petitioner regarding coercion or forceful execution of the agreement.

Court's interpretation and reasoning: The revisional authority observed that the petitioner had the option to instruct his banker to stop payment of the post-dated cheques if he disputed the liability or the settlement terms. The absence of such steps indicated acceptance of liability. The Court found the coercion plea to be a mere afterthought or ploy to evade responsibility.

Key evidence and findings: The petitioner's failure to raise any complaint about coercion contemporaneously and the issuance of 12 post-dated cheques in favour of the respondent were significant factors. The Court also noted the lack of any credible evidence supporting the coercion claim.

Application of law to facts: The Court applied the principle that the drawer of a cheque must exercise care and ensure the cheque would be honoured. The petitioner's conduct was inconsistent with the defence of coercion.

Treatment of competing arguments: The petitioner's argument was rejected as unsubstantiated and contradicted by the facts.

Conclusion: The Court upheld the validity of the settlement agreement and rejected the coercion defence.

Issue 3: Consideration of petitioner's financial incapacity due to bank account seizure

Relevant legal framework: The financial status of the accused is a relevant factor in deciding interim compensation under Section 143A.

Court's interpretation and reasoning: While the petitioner argued that his bank accounts were seized by the Income Tax Department since 11.03.2020, rendering him unable to pay the compensation, the Court did not find this sufficient to overturn the interim compensation order. The Court emphasized that the provision aims to create financial responsibility and prevent misuse of negotiable instruments.

Application of law to facts: The Court observed that the petitioner had not demonstrated an absolute inability to pay or provided evidence of financial distress sufficient to deny interim compensation.

Treatment of competing arguments: The petitioner's financial incapacity plea was considered but found insufficient to negate the prima facie case for interim compensation.

Conclusion: The Court did not accept financial incapacity as a ground to interfere with the interim compensation order.

Issue 4: Opportunity to lead defence evidence and cross-examination of complainant

Relevant legal framework: The petitioner contended that he was not granted an opportunity to lead defence evidence or cross-examine the complainant, which allegedly led to acceptance of false and fabricated evidence.

Court's interpretation and reasoning: The Court noted that the present stage concerned an application for interim compensation and not the trial on merits. The Court clarified that detailed examination of evidence and cross-examination is a matter for trial and cannot be adjudicated at this interlocutory stage.

Application of law to facts: The Court held that the petitioner's attempt to argue merits was misplaced at this stage and that the Trial Court and the revisional authority correctly refrained from delving into detailed evidence evaluation beyond prima facie considerations.

Treatment of competing arguments: The petitioner's plea for cross-examination was rejected as premature and irrelevant to the interim compensation application.

Conclusion: The Court upheld the procedural propriety of the impugned orders in the context of the interim compensation application.

3. SIGNIFICANT HOLDINGS

"The exercise of power under sub-section (1) of Section 143A is discretionary. The provision is directory and not mandatory. The word 'may' used in the provision cannot be construed as 'shall'."

"While deciding the prayer made under Section 143A, the Court must record brief reasons indicating consideration of all relevant factors."

"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."

"The purpose of Section 138 of NI Act, especially Section 148 NI Act is to create a kind of atmosphere of some financial responsibility qua the persons who use Negotiable Instruments, especially cheques. The drawer of a cheque is supposed to be careful while issuing and should ensure that it would be honoured."

"Any lapse in the shape of dishonour of the cheque has been made punishable with a view that people should responsibly issue such cheques. The provision of interim compensation was initially not there in the statute but has been added into it as it was found that the proceedings are being dragged and the desired results in terms of the objects and purpose of the statute, more particularly Section 138 NI Act, was not forthcoming, thus this provision of interim compensation was brought in. The sole aim was to provide some solace to the recipient of the cheque under certain circumstances."

Final determinations:

- The Revision Petition challenging the interim compensation order was rightly dismissed by the revisional authority.

- The petitioner's defence of coercion and denial of liability was not prima facie plausible and was rightly rejected.

- The Courts below properly exercised their discretion under Section 143A of the NI Act, recording adequate reasons.

- The petitioner's financial incapacity plea was insufficient to deny interim compensation.

- The petitioner's contention regarding lack of opportunity to lead defence evidence or cross-examine the complainant was premature and irrelevant at the interim compensation stage.