S.397 CrPC | Revision Petition Before Sessions Court Against Order Passed By Magistrate U/S 143A NI Act Maintainable: Karnataka High Court

The Karnataka High Court has held that a revision petition preferred before the Sessions court under Section 397 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, challenging an order made by the Magistrate Court under Section 143A of the Negotiable Instruments Act, is maintainable.

A single judge bench of Justice M Nagaprasanna said,

“An order passed on an application filed under Section 143A of the Act, is not interlocutory order, but an intermediate order, as the application is filed, and the application is closed, under the said provision, determining the rights and liabilities of parties qua the application and revision petition before the Court of Sessions on the order passed by the learned Magistrate under Section 143A either allowing the application, or rejecting it, would be maintainable for the aggrieved party, be it the complainant or the accused to approach.”

The petitioner Sanjay PS approached the court questioning order dated June 17 passed by the Sessions Judge, directing him to pay 10% of cheque amount to the respondent Abhishek M, within 60 days from the date of the order, under Section 143A of the Act.

The primary contention raised by the petitioner is that when upon hearing the parties, the Magistrate court had rejected the application filed by the complainant for grant of interim compensation, the revision petition filed before the Sessions Judge is not maintainable.

Further, it was said the petition (before the session judge) is not maintainable, and thus any order that is passed is a nullity in law. It was argued that the remedy that was available to the complainant was to knock at the doors of the High Court and not the Court of Sessions.

The bench noted that Section 397(2) of the Code mandates that the power of revision conferred under sub section (1), shall not be exercised in relation to any interlocutory order passed in any appeal, inquiry, trial or other proceeding. It held,

“Section 143A of the Act is a complete code by itself qua an application to be filed for interim compensation. The genesis and closure of the application happens under Section 143A of the Act itself. Therefore, it terminates the application. Therefore, it is not an interlocutory order, but an intermediate order.”

It then explained that an intermediate order would mean an order that emerges within a proceeding which culminates in closure of the said intermediate proceeding. The closure happens on account of the rights and liabilities of the parties being determined in the said proceeding, therefore, it is an intermediate order.

Following which it held, “If it is an intermediate order, the revision would undoubtedly be maintainable before the Court of Sessions.”

Accordingly it rejected the petition.

Case Title: Sanjay P S And Abhishek M

Case No: Criminal Petition No: 5944/2023

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 303

Date of Order: 28-07-2023

Appearance: Advocate Jaysham Jayasimha Rao for petitioner.

Click Here To Read/Download Order