Interim Order 13

Order Details: COPY OF JUDICIAL PROCEEDINGS
Pdf Text: CC NI ACT / 28217/2024
M/s ABBA Consultants Pvt Ltd Vs. Mr Vibhor Massey
05.10.2026
Present: Sh. Vinod Gaur, Ld. Counsel for complainant through VC.
Sh. D.K. Pandey, Ld. counsel for the accused with accused through
VC.
ORDER
1. Vide this order, I shall dispose of the application u/s 143 A NI Act, 1881,
filed by the complainant for seeking interim compensation as well as the
application u/s 145(2) NI Act filed by the accused seeking right to cross-
examine the complainant.
2. Briefly stated, the facts of the present case, per the case of the
complainant are that the complainant was supplying goods to the accused
at his factory namely Vibhor Enterprises. As per the order of the accused,
the complainant supplied goods worth Rs. 13,52,555/- for invoice dated
29.09.2022 and worth Rs. 14,90,344/- for invoice dated 12.10.2022. Out
of the total pending amount of Rs. 28,42,899/-, the accused paid Rs.
5,00,000/- on 17.03.2023 and Rs. 2,50,000/- on 06.04.2023.
3. Thereafter, the accused handed over five cheques to the complainant in
discharge of his legally enforceable liability, out of which one cheque
bearing no. 000408 dated 20.03.2024 for an amount of Rs. 4,00,000 /-,
drawn on ICICI Bank, Meerut Mawana Road, Mawana, were presented
for encashment. The said cheque was returned dishonoured vide return
memos dated 17.06.2024 with the remarks “funds insufficient”.
Thereafter, the complainant sent a legal demand notice dated 19.06.2024
to the accused. However, no reply to the same was received and the
1
-- 1 of 7 --
accused failed to make any payment within 15 days of the receipt of the
legal notice. Hence, the present complaint was filed.
4. The complainant has moved the present application u/s 143A NI Act
seeking payment of interim compensation to the tune of 20% of the
cheque amount while the accused has moved the application u/s 145(2)
NI Act seeking the right to cross-examine the complainant.
5. Ld. Counsel for the complainant has submitted that there is clear
documentary evidence to show that the accused is liable for the cheque
amount. Further, it is submitted by ld. Counsel for the complainant that
the accused has not put forth any tenable defence at the stage of framing
of notice and has infact admitted the liability towards the complainant.
Ld. Counsel for the complainant argues that not only has the accused
admitted the signatures on the cheques in question and filling up of the
particulars of the said cheques, but he has also admitted that he had
liability towards the complainant. The sole defence taken by the accused,
it is argued, is that he could not pay the amount on account of business
problems and the same is no defence to a prosecution u/s 138 NI Act. It is
further argued by Ld. Counsel for the complainant that a settlement
agreement was also entered into between the complainant and the accused
wherein the liability has been clearly admitted by the accused. As such, it
is prayed that the interim compensation be granted to the tune of 20% in
the circumstances of the case. It is also argued that the application u/s
145(2) NI Act be disallowed as no tenable defence has been raised by the
accused.
6. Per Contra, Ld. Counsel for accused has argued that the application u/s
143 A should be disallowed as there is no ground made out to allow
interim compensation. Ld. Counsel for the accused submits that the
2
-- 2 of 7 --
remedy u/s 143 A is a discretionary remedy and the present complaint
does not provide any reason for exercise of the said discretion. It is
submitted that although it is correct that the accused has admitted some
liability at the stage of framing of notice u/s 251 CrPC, it is nowhere
stated by the accused that the cheque was issued in discharge of a legally
enforceable liability. As such, the same should not be read against him. It
is further submitted by ld. Counsel for the accused that the father of the
accused was requested for the cheques by the complainant purely as a
matter of help as the complainant’s overdraft limit was likely to be
reduced and the cheques in question were only required to be shown to
the bank and were never meant to be presented for encashment. Ld.
Counsel for the accused submitted that the cheques in question had been
misused by the complainant. Ld. Counsel for the accused also submitted
that the defence raised by the accused has raised several triable issues as
to absence of ledger and accounts, concealment of payments already
received, nature and purpose of issuance of cheques and the absence of
any legally enforceable liability and these cannot be adjudicated without
permitting the accused to cross-examine the complainant. As such, it is
prayed that the application u/s 145(2) NI Act be allowed and the
application filed by the complainant u/s 143A be dismissed.
7. Submissions Heard. Record Perused.
8. This court shall first deal with the application u/s 143 A NI Act. The law
with respect to the exercise of discretion u/s 143A NI Act has been clearly
laid down in this regard in the case
Rakesh Ranjan Srivastava vs. State of
Jharkhand, Criminal Appeal No. 741 of 2024 decided on 15.03.2024,
wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court has observed hereunder:
3
-- 3 of 7 --
“19. Subject to what is held earlier, the main conclusions
can be summarised as follows:
a. 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."
b. While deciding the prayer made under Section 143A, the
Court must record brief reasons indicating consideration of
all relevant factors.
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
stated. The parameters stated above are not exhaustive."
9. The case of the complainant is that of non-payment pursuant to supply of
goods. The accused has duly admitted the liability at the stage of framing
4
-- 4 of 7 --
of notice. The settlement agreement dated 12.03.2025, which has been
placed on record and has been admittedly signed by both the parties,
clearly shows the acknowledgment that the cheques in question were
handed over in discharge of legally enforceable liability. At the stage of
framing of notice u/s 251 CrPC, the accused has admitted the signatures
on the cheques, the filling up of the particulars on the same, the address
on the legal notice, and has merely stated in his defence that:
“It is correct that I had a liability towards the complainant
but I could not pay the same on account of business
problems. I am willing to settle the matter if some time is
given to make the payment”
10. It is clear that no tenable defence had been put forth at this stage by the
accused. It is only at the stage of arguments on the present application that
Ld. Counsel for the accused has raised this version wherein it is stated
that the complainant had requested the father of the accused to provide
certain cheques purely as a matter of help stating that the complainant’s
bank was insisting on showing expected inflow of funds as the
complainant’s overdraft limit was likely to be reduced. It is also stated at
this stage that accused has paid a total amount of more than Rs.
17,50,000/- including cash of Rs. 5,00,000/- to the complainant which has
not been disclosed. Interestingly, none of these facts have been stated by
the accused in his defence at the stage of framing of notice. The accused
has placed on record the whatsapp communication allegedly sent by the
complainant to the accused wherein the complainant has forwarded the
message from the bank regarding freezing of overdraft account. The said
message states that
“Message from bank today, need your support in
clearing our dues as well as more if possible”. The said message nowhere
5
-- 5 of 7 --
clarifies that the cheques in question were sought for the overdraft
account or that there was no outstanding liability.
11.The fact remains that the execution of the cheques as well as the existence
of the liability has been admitted by the accused. In the light of the above,
it is clear that the complainant has established a prima facie case in his
favour. No plausible defence has been raised by the accused to disentitle
the complainant to the present interim relief being prayed for.
12.So far as the quantum of interim compensation is concerned, the present
transaction is that of commercial nature. The accused has admitted the
liability and has even entered into a settlement agreement. However,
admittedly, no payment has been made by the accused till date. Therefore,
this court is of the considered view that that there are sufficient grounds
made out to allow the present application u/s 143A NI Act for interim
compensation to the tune of 20% of the cheque amount.
13.Therefore, in order to further the object of Section 143A NI Act, the
present application stand allowed qua the accused Vibhor Massey, who is
the drawer of the cheques in question, and accused is hereby directed to
make the payment of 20% of the total cheque amount. i.e. Rs. 80,000/- to
the complainant as interim compensation within 60 days from today.
14. Now, while considering the application u/s 145(2) NI Act, the fact
remains that the grounds raised by the accused as to the purpose of
issuance of cheques, concealment of payments already made, misuse of
cheques and the absence of legally enforceable liability, are contentious in
nature which can only be decided upon a meticulous examination of the
evidence during the course of the trial. Even though such grounds have
not been raised by the accused at the stage of framing of notice u/s 251
CrPC, the same should not disentitle the accused from cross-examining
6
-- 6 of 7 --
the complainant when the application moved by the accused clearly states
the said grounds.
15.Accordingly, the application moved by the accused u/s 145(2) NI Act,
stands allowed.
16.Both the applications stand disposed of accordingly.
17.Nothing herein contained shall tantamount to an expression on the merits
of the case.
18.In the event of acquittal of the accused in the present case, the
complainant shall be liable to repay the interim compensation amount to
the said accused with interest as per the prevailing bank rates, as provided
in Section 143A (4) of the NI Act.
19.In the event of any default on the part of the accused to pay the interim
compensation amount within 60 days, the complainant is at liberty to
initiate appropriate proceedings as provided u/s 143A(5) of the Negotiable
Instruments Act, 1881.
(Akanksha Singh)
JMFC(NIAct)/02/PHC
NDD-ND-05.10.2026
7
-- 7 of 7 --