Lexpedia — Digital Smart Study
Latest JudgementNegotiable Instrument Act, 1881

Sri Madhu Ram Deka v. The State of Assam & Another, 2026

The judgment reinforces that Section 143-A NI Act confers discretion, not an automatic right.

Gauhati High Court·30 January 2026
Sri Madhu Ram Deka v. The State of Assam & Another, 2026
Negotiable Instrument Act, 1881
Share:

Judgement Details

Court

Gauhati High Court

Date of Decision

30 January 2026

Judges

Justice Pranjal Das

Citation

Acts / Provisions

Section 13(1)(ia), Hindu Marriage Act, 1955

Section 25, Hindu Marriage Act, 1955

Facts of the Case

  • The case arose out of a cheque bounce complaint under Section 138 of the NI Act.

  • The cheque in question was for ₹20,00,000.

  • The cheque was dishonoured with the remark “drawer’s signature differs”.

  • The Trial Court directed the accused to pay 20% of the cheque amount as interim compensation under Section 143-A of the NI Act.

  • The accused/petitioner challenged this order by filing a criminal revision before the High Court.

  • The petitioner contended that:

    • He never issued the cheque.

    • The signature on the cheque was not his.

    • He did not maintain the bank account in question.

    • He had already lodged a complaint alleging forgery, leading to registration of an FIR under Sections 420, 468, and 471 IPC.

  • The petitioner’s version was supported by the testimony of the bank branch manager.

Issues

  1. Whether interim compensation under Section 143-A of the NI Act can be granted when there are serious disputed questions of fact requiring adjudication through evidence?

  2. Whether the Trial Court is required to consider the prima facie merits of the defence before directing payment of interim compensation under Section 143-A of the NI Act?

  3. Whether denial of cheque issuance and allegation of forgery constitutes a plausible defence to refuse interim compensation at the initial stage?

Held

  • Where disputed questions of fact exist requiring adjudication through evidence, it is not prudent to grant interim compensation under Section 143-A of the NI Act.

  • If the defence of the accused is prima facie plausible, the Court may refuse to grant interim compensation.

  • Interim compensation cannot be mechanically granted merely because financial hardship is pleaded by the complainant.

Analysis

  • The judgment reinforces that Section 143-A NI Act confers discretion, not an automatic right.

  • It emphasizes the need for a balanced approach, protecting accused persons from premature financial burden.

  • The Court correctly applied the principle that:

    • Interim compensation is justified only where liability is prima facie apparent.

  • The decision safeguards against misuse of Section 143-A in cases involving:

    • Alleged forgery

    • Denial of signature

    • Disputed account ownership

  • By relying on Rakesh Ranjan Shrivastava, the Court aligned its reasoning with established precedent.

  • The ruling underscores that speedy recovery objectives of the NI Act cannot override fair trial guarantees.