Patna High Court
Aaquil EqubalversusThe State of Bihar
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISPOSED
- Bench
- ARUN KUMAR JHA
Holding
The order directing payment of interim compensation under Section 143(A) is interlocutory and not subject to revision; the revision petition is therefore disposed.
Summary
The petitioner, Aaquil Equbal, was convicted under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act for issuing a dishonoured cheque and was ordered by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate‑VII, Patna, to pay interim compensation of 20% of the cheque amount, i.e., Rs 3 lakhs. He filed a criminal revision challenging the order, alleging that the cheque showed a discrepancy between figures and words, that the parties were relatives, and that the trial court had not properly assessed the suspicious nature of the cheque. The respondent (opposite party No. 2) contended that the matter was now infructuous because the petitioner had already complied with the payment. The High Court examined Section 143(A) of the Negotiable Instruments Act, noting that the provision allows a discretionary, interlocutory order of interim compensation which is payable by the drawer and refundable if acquitted. The Court held that such an interlocutory order is not amenable to revision and, since the payment had already been made, there was nothing further to adjudicate. Consequently, the revision petition was disposed of.
Issues considered
- Whether an order directing payment of interim compensation under Section 143(A) of the Negotiable Instruments Act is interlocutory and therefore not maintainable for revision
- Whether a revision petition can be entertained after the petitioner has already complied with the interim compensation order
Legislation cited
- Criminal Procedure Code — s. 357, 421
- Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 — s. 143(A)
Subjects
- Negotiable Instruments Act
- Section 138
- interim compensation
- revision
- interlocutory order
- criminal procedure
- cheque dishonour
- payment of compensation
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL REVISION No.738 of 2025
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-8464 Year-2023 Thana- PATNA COMPLAINT CASE District-
Patna
======================================================
Aaquil Equbal S/o- Md. Equbal, Resident of Darji Mohalla, Jama Masjid,
Gola Road, P.O.- Tairpur, P.S.- Tairpur, Dist- Samastipur.
... ... Petitioner
Versus
1. The State of Bihar
2. Md. Mahtab Alam S/o- Md. Noor Alam, R/o- Alam Lodi Katra, Garhi Par,
Near Tubaday School, PO- Khajekalan, PS- Khejekalan, Patna City, Dist-
Patna.
... ... Respondents
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner : Mr. Ambuj Kumar Chandra, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Prem Kumar Jha, APP
For the OP No. 2 : Mr. Rizwanul Jama Kha, Advocate
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN KUMAR JHA
ORAL JUDGMENT
Date : 07-07-2026
The matter was heard via video conferencing
mode.
2. Heard learned counsels for the parties.
3. The instant revision petition has been filed
against the order dated 24.05.2025 passed by learned Additional
Chief Judicial Magistrate-VII, Patna in connection with
Complaint Case No. 8464(C) of 2023, whereby and whereunder
the petitioner / accused was directed to make payment of 20%
of the amount of money of dishonoured cheque, i.e. rupees three
lakhs.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that
without assessing the facts of the case properly and despite
Patna High Court CR. REV. No.738 of 2025 dt.07-07-2026
2/5
suspicious nature of dishonoured cheque, the learned trial Court
forced the petitioner to make payment of 20% of the amount
which is not proper. Learned counsel further submits that the
cheque contains different amount in words and in figures. In
figures it mentions only rupees one lakh and fifty thousand
whereas in words it is written as fifteen lakhs. It shows the
suspicious nature of the cheque. Unless proof comes to the fore
that the opposite party no. 2 gave rupees fifteen lakhs to the
petitioner and he brings evidence in support of his claim, no
order could be passed directing the petitioner to make payment
of the 20% of the compensation amount. Learned counsel also
submits that petitioner and opposite party no. 2 are relatives and
the Court did not consider the probability of misuse of cheque
by the opposite party no. 2. It appears that opposite party no. 2
somehow got a single cheque and committed a mischief by
presenting the same. Therefore, the impugned order is not
sustainable.
5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the
opposite party no. 2 submits that the matter has become
infructuous as the petitioner has already made the payment of
20% of the amount, i.e. rupees three lakhs and the trial is at its
final stage. Therefore, learned counsel submits that the present
Patna High Court CR. REV. No.738 of 2025 dt.07-07-2026
3/5
revision petition be dismissed.
6. I have perused the record.
7. Section 143(A) of the NI Act reads as under:
“Notwithstanding anything contained in the
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, the Court trying
an offence under section 138 may order the drawer
of the cheque to pay interim compensation to the
complainant-
(a) in a summary trial or a summons case,
where he pleads not guilty to the accusation made in
the complaint; and
(b) in any other case, upon framing of
charge.
2. The interim compensation under sub-
section (1) shall not exceed twenty percent of the
amount of the cheque.
3. The interim compensation shall be paid
within sixty days from the date of the order under
sub-section (1), or within such further period not
exceeding thirty days as may be directed by the
Court on sufficient cause being shown by the
drawer of the cheque.
4. If the drawer of the cheque is acquitted, the
Court shall direct the complainant to repay to the
drawer the amount of interim compensation, with
interest at the bank rate as published by the Reserve
Bank of India, prevalent at the beginning of the
relevant financial year, within sixty days from the
date of the order, or within such further period not
exceeding thirty days as may be directed by the
Court on sufficient cause being shown by the
complainant.
5. The interim compensation payable under
this section may be recovered as if it were a fine
under section 421 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974).
Patna High Court CR. REV. No.738 of 2025 dt.07-07-2026
4/5
6. The amount of fine imposed under section
138 or the amount of compensation awarded under
section 357 of the Code of Criminal Procedure,
1973 (2 of 1974), shall be reduced by the amount
paid or recovered as interim compensation under
this section.”
8. The provision of Section 143(A) of NI Act
allows interim compensation to the complainant provided that if
the accused pleads not guilty to the accusation made in the
complaint in a summary trial or summons case. The said
provision also makes it clear that if the drawer of the cheque is
acquitted, the Court shall direct the complainant to repay to the
drawer the amount of interim compensation with interest at the
bank rate as published by the Reserve Bank of India prevalent at
the beginning of the relevant financial year, within 60 days from
the date of the order or within further period not exceeding
thirty days as may be directed by the Court on sufficient cause
being shown by the complainant. So it is very much clear that
the grant of interim compensation is a judicial discretion of the
Court and the said compensation is to be paid on the orders of
the Court by the drawer of the cheque to the complainant when
he pleads not guilty to the accusation; of course in summary
trial or summons case, and in any other case, upon framing of
charge. Moreover, it has also been made clear that in case the
drawer of the cheque is acquitted, interim compensation so
Patna High Court CR. REV. No.738 of 2025 dt.07-07-2026
5/5
made would be repaid to the drawer on prevailing rate of
interest. Therefore, the nature of the order under Section 143(A)
is interlocutory and there is no finality attached to it. If the order
is interlocutory, no revision is maintainable against such order.
Furthermore, the petitioner has already made the payment of the
interim compensation amount and now this Court would not
turn the clock back. It also appears the reason for the petitioner
to continue the criminal revision is only to get some favourable
order from this Court to help him in the trial Court.
9. Be that as it may, as the order appears to be
interlocutory and further the petitioner has already made the
payment in terms of the impugned order, nothing remains in the
matter and hence the present revision petition stands disposed
of.
(Arun Kumar Jha, J)
Shahnawaz/-
AFR/NAFR NAFR
CAV DATE N/A
Uploading Date 09.07.2026
Transmission Date 09.07.2026
Checking your session…
Lawyer court records for this case
Associated through the court’s case reference.