Metropolitan Magistrate’s Order for Interim Compensation u/s 143A Remanded for Fresh Decision as Defense Was Not Considered | HC

Case Details: Vandana Kapoor v. Rajesh Kumar Agarwal - [2025] 171 taxmann.com 330 (HC-Delhi)

Judiciary and Counsel Details

• Vikas Mahajan, J.
• Ms Santosh & Noorulislam, Advs. for the Petitioner.
• J.S. Arora & Ms Sheetal Nagar, Advs. for the Respondent.

Facts of the Case

In the instant case, the petitioner-accused filed a criminal revision petition against the Metropolitan Magistrate (MM) order, in which MM had directed the petitioner to pay Rs. 15 lakhs as interim compensation under section 143A of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, to respondent-complainant within two months.

However, the Principal District and sessions Judge dismissed the case. Thereafter, the petitioner filed an instant petition challenging the order directing her to pay interim compensation.

The petitioner submitted that although the cheque was signed by them, they had no liability to respondent, as loan agreement was between respondent and the petitioner’s husband, and the said agreement did not bear the petitioner’s signature.

Further, the petitioner alleged that lower courts had failed to prima facie consider the merits of case or evaluate their defense properly before passing the order.

High Court Held

The High Court held that since the MM and Revisional Court had not prima facie evaluated the merits of the case set up in the complaint as well as the defence of the accused and the factors to be borne in mind for deciding the quantum of interim compensation had also not been adverted to, the impugned order was to be set aside. The matter was to be remanded back to the Trial Court for deciding the application of complainant under section 143A of the Act afresh.

List of Cases Reviewed

• Rakesh Ranjan Srivastava v. The State of Jharkhand &Anr., (2024) 3 SCR 438 (para 6) followed.

List of Cases Referred to

• Rakesh Ranjan Srivastava v. The State of Jharkhand &Anr. 3 SCR 438 (para 4).