Trial Court’s order set aside as it overlooked the response and contentions of the accused: HC

Case Details: JSB Cargo and Freight Forwarder (P.) Ltd. v. State - [2022] 136 taxmann.com 49 (Delhi)[20-12-2021]

Judiciary and Counsel Details

• • Ms. Anu Malhotra, J.
  • Bharat Gupta and Gunjan Arora, Advs. for the Petitioner. 
  • Ms. Aashaa Tiwari, APP and Ashok Mahipal, Adv. for the Respondent.

Facts of the Case

In the instant case, the Complainant lodged a case for dishonour of cheque issued by the accused. The Trial Court ordered the accused to pay 20 per cent of cheque amount to the complainant as interim compensation in accordance with provisions of section 143A. It was noted that Trial Court directed the accused to pay interim compensation without considering submissions sought to be raised by the accused that complainant had concealed factum of having received substantial money from accused.

High Court Held

It was observed that the Trial Court did not even consider that accused could have put forth their documents i.e. bank statements, e-mails etc. which could have been considered and dealt with by the Metropolitian Magistrate. Setting aside the Trial Court’s order, the High Court held that order passed by Trial Court directing accused to pay interim compensation to complainant was without resorting to provisions of section 294 of Cr.P.C. and thus, could not be held to be within contours of section 143A to be with sufficient reasons.

Case Review

• • Order of Metropolitan Magistrate in CC No. CC NI Act 12-20 titled as Savita Suryavanshi v. JSB Cargo and Freight Forwarder (P.) Ltd. and CC No. CC NI Act Suneel Suryavanshi v. JSB Cargo and Freight Forwarder dated 21-09-2021 (para 54) reversed.

List of Cases Referred to

• • Rajesh Soni v. Mukesh Verma 2021 SCC Online Chh 1761 (para 6)
  • LGR Enterprises v. P. Anbazhargan 2019 (3) MLJ (Crl.) 423 (para 8)
  • Jahangir v. Farook Ahmad Razak [Crl. Pet No. 201213 of 2020, dated 6-7-2021] (para 8)
  • Nurallah Kamruddi Veljee v. Farid Veljee 2019 SCC Online Bom. 1537 (para 34)
  • Surinder Singh Deswal @ Col. S.S. Deswal v. Virender Gandhi [2019] 107 taxmann.com 97/154 SCL 303 (SC) (para 35)
  • Ajay Vinodchandra Shah v. State of Maharashtra [2019] 106 taxmann.com 19 (Bom.) (para 38)
  • Mohan Singh v. International Airport Authority of India [1997] 9 SCC 132 (para 41)
  • State of U.P. v. Babu Ram Upadhya AIR 1961 SC 751 (para 41)
  • Dayawati v. Yogesh Kumar Gosain [2017] 87 taxmann.com 128 (Delhi) (para 47)
  • Gouranga Sarkar v. Biswajit Sarkar 2005 SCC Online Cal. 15 (para 48)
  • Geeta Marine Services (P.) Ltd. v. State 2008 SCC Online Bom. 924 (para 49)
  • S.N. Khetan v. KSL & Industries [Special Leave To Appeal (Crl.) Nos. 8436-8438 of 2008, dated 5-12-2008] (para 49)
  • Joginder Singh v. Anurag Malik [CRM – M – 4629 of 2015, dated 23-2-2015] (para 50)
  • To Issue Certain Guidelines Regarding Inadequacies And Deficiencies in Criminal Trials v. State of A.P. [Suo Moto Writ (Crl.) No. (s) 1 of 2017, dated 20-4-2021] (para 51).