NURUDDIN BADRUDDIN AJANIversusFAYYAZ AMIRALI SHROFF AND ANR

                                                                               35-WP-3395-2025.doc


                                 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                      CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
                                         WRIT PETITION NO.3395 OF 2025
ARJUN
VITTHAL               Nuruddin Badruddin Ajani                                ...Petitioner
KUDHEKAR                      Versus
Digitally signed by
ARJUN VITTHAL         Fayyaz Amirali Shroff & Anr.                            ...Respondents
KUDHEKAR
Date: 2026.09.17                                     ——————
12:47:18 +0530

                      Mr. Siddhesh Borkar a/w Prachi Parte & Harsh Parte, for the Petitioner.
                      Mr. Suraj Dessai Almeida, for Respondent No.1.
                      Ms. M. R. Tidke, APP, for Respondent No.2-State.
                                                     ——————
                                                              Coram: Madhav J. Jamdar, J.
                                                              Date: 16 September 2026
                      P.C.:

                      1.      Heard Mr. Borkar, learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioner

                      and Mr. Almeida, learned Counsel appearing for Respondent No.1.

                      2.      In this Writ Petition, the relief sought is seeking quashing of

                      Complaint being CC No.2723/SS/2021 and also the challenge is to the

                      Order dated 13th February 2024 passed below Exhibit-23 in CC No.

                      2723/SS/2021 by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, 63th Court,

                      Andheri, Mumbai, by which 20% of cheque amount has been directed to

                      be deposited by exercising power under Section 143-A of the Negotiable

                      Instruments Act, 1881.

                      3.      At the outset, Mr. Borkar, learned Counsel, states that he has

                      instructions to withdraw the Writ Petition as far as relief of quashing of




                      Arjun                               1
                                                             35-WP-3395-2025.doc


complaint filed under Section 138 of the NI Act and only to press relief

seeking to challenge the Order dated 13th February 2024.

4.       Mr. Borkar, learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioner, states

that the impugned Order has been passed without taking into

consideration various aspects and factors required to be taken into

consideration while passing Order under Section 143-A of the NI Act as

directed by the Supreme Court in the decision of Rakesh Ranjan

Shrivastava v. The State Of Jharkhand 1.

5.       Mr. Almeida, learned Counsel appearing for Respondent No.2

points out several aspects on merits.

6.       The relevant directions issued by the Supreme Court are to be

found in Paragraph Nos.22 to 24 of Rakesh Ranjan Shrivastava (supra),

which read as under:

        “22. When the court deals with an application under
        Section 143-A of the NI Act, 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 under sub-section (1) of Section 143-A.
        The presumption under Section 139 of the NI Act, by itself, is
        no ground to direct the payment of interim compensation. The
        reason is that the presumption is rebuttable. The question of
        applying the presumption will arise at the trial. Only if the
        complainant makes out a prima facie case, a direction can be
        issued to pay interim compensation. At this stage, the fact
        that the accused is in financial distress can also be a
        consideration.

        23.    Even if the court concludes that a case is made out for
        grant of interim compensation, the court will have to apply its
1    (2024) 4 SCC 419 : 2024 SCC OnLine SC 309


Arjun                                      2
                                                             35-WP-3395-2025.doc


        mind to the quantum of interim compensation to be granted.
        Even at this stage, the court will have to consider various
        factors such as the nature of the transaction, the relationship,
        if any, between the accused and the complainant and the
        paying capacity of the accused. If the defence of the accused is
        found to be prima facie a plausible defence, the court may
        exercise discretion in refusing to grant interim compensation.

        24.     We may note that the factors required to be
        considered, which we have set out above, are not exhaustive.
        There could be several other factors in the facts of a given
        case, such as, the pendency of a civil suit, etc. While deciding
        the prayer made under Section 143-A, the Court must record
        brief reasons indicating consideration of all the relevant
        factors.”

7.       Perusal of the impugned Order clearly shows that above aspects

are not at all taken into consideration.

8.       Thus, the impugned Order dated 13th February 2024 passed

below Exhibit-23 in CC No. 2723/SS/2021 by the learned Metropolitan

Magistrate, 63th Court, Andheri, Mumbai, by which 20% of cheque

amount has been directed to be deposited by exercising power under

Section 143-A of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, is quashed and

set aside and said application bearing Exhibit-23 in CC No.2723/SS/2021

is remanded back to the learned JMFC for deciding the same afresh

after giving hearing opportunity to both the sides and in accordance

with law by following the directions of the Supreme Court in Rakesh

Ranjan Shrivastava (supra).

9.       It is specifically noted that as the Writ Petition is withdrawn with

respect to the relief regarding quashing, the Writ Petition concerning


Arjun                                  3
                                                         35-WP-3395-2025.doc


said reliefs stands dismissed as withdrawn.

10.     The Writ Petition is accordingly disposed of in above terms.



                                                 [Madhav J. Jamdar, J.]




Arjun                                4