Manipur High Court
Ranibala Yengkhom vs Irungbam Johney Chanu on 16 March, 2026
Author: A. Guneshwar Sharma
Bench: A. Guneshwar Sharma
Item Nos. 2-3
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MANIPUR
AT IMPHAL
CRIL.PETN. No. 24 of 2026
Ranibala Yengkhom.
...Petitioner
- Versus -
Irungbam Johney Chanu.
...Respondent
With
MC(Cril.Petn.) No. 19 of 2026
B EF O R E
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A. GUNESHWAR SHARMA
ORDER
16-03-2026
[1] Heard Mr. S. Biswajit Meitei, learned senior counsel assisted by
Mr. W. Sanatomba, learned counsel for the petitioner.
[2] By the present petition, under Section 482 of CrPC, 1973/528 of
BNSS, 2023, the petitioner has approached this Court for setting aside of
the order dated 04-10-2025 passed by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate,
Imphal West in Cril. (Misc.) Case No. 143 of 2024 [Ref: Cril. (NI) Case No.
50 of 2023) and also the order dated 24-02-2026 passed by the learned
Sessions Judge, Imphal West in Cril. Revision Case No. 20 of 2025
upholding the order dated 04-10-2025 passed by the learned Chief Judicial
Magistrate, Imphal West. By the impugned orders, the petitioner, who is an
accused in the complaint case filed by the respondent herein, was directed
to pay a sum of Rs. 2,72,000/- as interim compensation under Section 143A
of Negotiable Instruments Act within a period of 60 days from the date of the
order and the direction of the order of learned CJM, Imphal West was upheld
Page 1 of 5
by the learned Sessions Judge, Imphal West by the impugned order dated
24-02-2026.
[3] Issue notice to the sole respondent in the main petition as well as
the application for interim relief.
[4] The petitioner is directed to take steps to the respondent by speed
post within one week and file an affidavit of proof of service.
[5] Mr. S. Biswajit Meitei, learned senior counsel for the petitioner,
submits that the direction in the impugned order of payment of Rs. 2,72,000/-
as interim compensation under Section 143A of NI Act be stayed during the
pendency of the present criminal petition, as the petitioner has a prima facie
good case on merits in the complaint filed by the respondent. It is submitted
that the complaint case under Negotiable Instruments Act is based on a
promissory note dated 18-06-2021 allegedly issued by the
petitioner/accused in favour of the respondent/complainant, whereby the
petitioner promised to pay a sum of Rs. 44,00,000/- to the respondent and
a cheque of Rs. 34,00,000/- was issued by the petitioner in partial discharge
of the liability of Rs. 44,00,000/- mentioned in the said promissory note and
when the cheque was dishonoured by the bank due to insufficiency of funds,
the respondent filed a complaint under Section 138 NI Act before the Court
of learned CJM, Imphal West and the same was registered as Cril. (NI) Case
No. 50 of 2023. The petitioner pleaded not guilty and claimed trial and in the
circumstances, the respondent filed an application being Cril. (Misc.) Case
No. 143 of 2024 under Section 143A of the NI Act seeking payment of 20%
of the cheque amount of Rs. 34,00,000/- as interim compensation. By the
impugned order dated 04-10-2025 passed by the learned CJM, Imphal
Page 2 of 5
West, the petitioner was directed to pay interim compensation of
Rs. 2,72,000/- @ 8% of the cheque amount of Rs. 34,00,000/- and the same
was upheld by the learned Sessions Judge, Imphal West. Mr. S. Biswajit
Meitei, learned senior counsel for the petitioner, submits that the petitioner
has a good case on merits and if the interim compensation is paid and in
case, the petitioner is finally acquitted, she will be forced to file a proceeding
for recovery of the interim compensation. Learned senior counsel for the
petitioner submits that the basis for issuing the cheque was the promissory
note dated 18-06-2021. It is pointed out that the said document is not a
promissory note in the true sense as defined under Section 4 of the NI Act.
It is also submitted that there are alterations with respect to the amount
undertaken to be paid by the petitioner. The words “Rupees forty four
thousand only” has been corrected as “Rupees forty four lakhs only” without
any authentication by the petitioner and also the rate of interest has not been
mentioned. It is also submitted that there is overwriting in the name of the
respondent/complainant and the name of the complainant’s husband
mentioned in the promissory note is different from that stated in the
complaint case. The promissory note is hit by Section 87 of the NI Act as
there is a material alteration in the promissory note and there is no signature
of the petitioner endorsing such correction. In the circumstances, it is
submitted that the petitioner has a good case on merits and is likely to
succeed and the direction to pay Rs. 2,72,000/- as interim compensation
would cause inconvenience to the petitioner. It is also submitted that the
material alterations and defects in the promissory note as well as the
amendment of the demand notice have not been properly considered by the
Page 3 of 5
court below. Learned senior counsel for the petitioner refers to the decision
of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Rakesh Ranjan Shrivastava
versus The State of Jharkhand reported as (2024) 4 SCC 419 where it is
stated that for granting an interim compensation under Section 143 A (1) of
the NI Act, the same has to be made on the following considerations:–
The provision is directory and not mandatory and the Court must
record reasons for indicating consideration of relevant parameters
and prima facie evaluate the case of both the complainant and the
accused on merits and the compensation can be issued only if the
complainant makes out a prima facie case and if the defence of
the accused is found to be prima facie plausible, the Court may
exercise discretion in refusing to grant interim compensation.
[6] Learned senior counsel for the petitioner also refers to a decision
of this Court reported in 2025 (4) MnLJ 1 wherein it was held that mere
issuance of a cheque is not sufficient and that the complainant has to prove
that the cheque was issued in discharge of a legally enforceable debt or
liability. Learned senior counsel for the petitioner also refers to another order
of this Court dated 25-02-2026 in CRIL. PETN. No. 18 of 2026 wherein the
payment of interim compensation was stayed as the accused has a good
case on merits. It is therefore prayed that the direction for payment of interim
compensation of Rs. 2,72,000/- be stayed during the pendency of the
present criminal petition.
[7] This Court has perused the materials on record and it is seen that
a cheque of Rs. 34,00,000/- was issued by the petitioner to the respondent
in partial discharge of a sum of Rs. 44,00,000/- allegedly borrowed by the
Page 4 of 5
petitioner from the respondent as recorded in the promissory note dated 18-06-2021. On perusal of the said promissory note, this Court finds correction
and alteration in the name of the complainant and in the amount of the sum
borrowed in figures, without appending any signature by the petitioner. In
the circumstances, the direction for payment of Rs. 2,72,000/- as interim
compensation in the order dated 04-10-2025 in Cril. (Misc.) Case No. 143
of 2024 [Ref: Cril. (NI) Case No. 50 of 2023) and the order dated 24-02-2026
in Cril. Revision Case No. 20 of 2025 shall remain suspended till the next
date. However, it is clarified that there is no stay of the proceedings in Cril.
(NI) Case No. 50 of 2023 pending before the Court of learned Chief Judicial
Magistrate, Imphal West.
[8] List these cases on 22-04-2026.
[9] Send a copy of this order to the learned CJM, Imphal West for
information.
JUDGE
Victoria
NINGOM Digitally signed
by NINGOMBAM
BAM VICTORIA
Date: 2026.03.17
VICTORIA 10:35:12 +05'30'
Page 5 of 5