Jammu and Kashmir High Court Dismisses Petition for Quashing Interim Compensation Order Under Negotiable Instruments Act

Petitioner Directed to Seek Remedy Through Sessions Court Following Dismissal by High Court

In a recent legal development, the Jammu and Kashmir High Court, presided over by Justice M. A. Chowdhary, dismissed a petition filed by Tafazul Fazili seeking to quash an order for interim compensation under Section 143A of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. The decision, dated December 11, 2025, emphasizes the legal distinction between interlocutory and intermediate orders, impacting the course of legal remedies available to litigants.

The case originated from a complaint lodged by Sabzar Ahmad Bandh, alleging that cheques amounting to Rs. 61,00,000/- issued by Fazili were dishonored. Subsequently, Bandh sought interim compensation amounting to 20% of the cheque value. The Special Mobile Magistrate of PT & E, Srinagar, ordered Fazili to pay 10% of the amount, specifically Rs. 6,10,000/-, as interim relief to Bandh.

Challenging this order, Fazili’s counsel, Mr. Umar Mir, contended that the magistrate's decision lacked sufficient justification and was arbitrary. The counsel drew attention to the necessity of applying judicial mind and providing reasoning, as emphasized in the Supreme Court's decision in 'Rakesh Ranjan Srivastava v. State of Jharkhand'.

Justice M. A. Chowdhary, while deliberating on the matter, clarified the nature of the order under Section 143A as an intermediate order rather than interlocutory. The court noted that such an order, determining the rights and liabilities of the parties involved, is subject to revision before the Sessions Court.

The judgment highlighted that Fazili bypassed the available legal remedy by directly approaching the High Court. Justice Chowdhary underscored that the petitioner should have sought redressal through a revision petition in the Sessions Court, given the intermediate nature of the order. Consequently, the High Court found the petition to be misconceived and dismissed it, advising Fazili to pursue the alternative remedy.

This decision reinforces the procedural framework within which litigants must operate, particularly in cases involving interim compensation under the Negotiable Instruments Act. It also reflects the judiciary's stance on maintaining the hierarchy of legal remedies, ensuring that litigants utilize all available avenues before seeking higher judicial intervention.

Bottom Line:

Interim compensation ordered under Section 143A of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 is not interlocutory but an intermediate order. Revision petition before the Sessions Court is maintainable against such an order.

Statutory provision(s): Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 Section 143A; Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 Section 438(2)

Tafazul Fazili v. Sabzar Ahmad Bandh, (Jammu And Kashmir)(Srinagar) : Law Finder Doc Id # 2822378