ORDER 1. This Miscellaneous Criminal Case has been filed by the petitioners under section 482 of the Cr.P.C., against the order dated 20.1.2024, passed by the IX Additional Sessions, Indore in CRR No.665/2023 whereby, the revisional court affirmed the order dated 3.8.2023, passed by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Indore in SC NIA No.7627/2022 whereby, the application filed by the complainant under Section 143-A of the Negotiable Instrument Act, 1881 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act of 1881”) has been allowed. 2. In brief, the facts of the case are that a complaint has been filed by the respondent-Kailash under section 138 of the Act of 1881, on account of dishonour of cheque of Rs.1,00,00,000/- (Rupees One Crore), and the case is at the stage of recording of evidence. In the said proceedings, an application was filed by the complainant/respondent under section 143-A of the Act of 1881, seeking 20% of the amount of cheque as interim compensation which was allowed by the Judicial Magistrate vide its order dated 3.8.2023, while holding that the defence set up by the petitioner is a disputed question of fact and can only be decided during the trial court. When the aforesaid order was challenged by the petitioner before the revisional Court, the learned IX Additional Sessions Judge, Indore vide its impugned order dated 20.1.2024, has mainly considered the provisions of section 143-A of the Act of 1881, and while relying upon the decision rendered by the Chhattisgarh High Court in the case of Rajesh Soni S/o P.R. Soni v. Mukesh Verma S/o Late Shri J.P. Verma {passed in Criminal Appeal No.562/2021 dated 30.6.2021}, which has also been approved by the Division Bench of this High Court vide its order dated 28.10.2022, in Writ Petition No. 23357/2022 {Sanjay Kumar Jain v. Union of India and others}, has directed that the provisions of section 143-A of the Act of 1881 are mandatory and the petitioners are liable to pay Rs.20,00,000/- (Rupees Twenty Lakhs only) which is 20% of the cheque amount as the interim compensation. 3. 3. Shri Abhijeet Dube, learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that in the recent decision rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Rakesh Ranjan Shrivastava v. State of Jharkhand and another {passed in Cr.A. No. 741 of 2024 dated 15.3.2024} it has already been held that the provisions of section 143-A of the Act of 1881 are discretionary and the word “may” used in the provision cannot be construed as “shall”. Thus, it is submitted that the impugned order be set aside, and the matter be remanded back to the revisional Court so that the Court may pass the order on merits. 4. Shri Vishal Baheti, learned counsel for the respondent has vehemently opposed the prayer and it is submitted that no case for interference is made out, and has relied upon the aforesaid decisions of the Chhatisgarh High Court as also the Division Bench of this Court, and it is submitted that the Division Bench of this Court has referred to the judgement in the case of Rajesh Soni (supra) with approval. Thus, it is submitted that no case for interference is called for. 5. Heard. Having considered the rival submissions, perusal of the documents filed on record, as also the impugned order passed by the revisional court, it is found that in the reasoning assigned by the revisional court, the emphasis is on the mandatory or directory nature of section 143-A of the Act of 1881, and after relying upon the aforesaid two decisions in the case of Rajesh Soni (supra) and Rakesh Ranjan Shrivastava (supra), it has been simply held that the learned Judge of the trial Court has rightly ordered for interim compensation of 20% of the cheque amount. 6. This Court is of the considered opinion that as has already been held by the apex Court in of its recent decision in the case of Rakesh Ranjan Shrivastava (supra), the provisions of section 143-A of the Act of 1881 are discretionary only, the decision in the case of Rajesh Soni (supra), by of the Chattisgarh High Court, is rendered bad in law, though it may have been cited with approval by the Division Bench of this Court. 7. 7. In such circumstances, since the revisional court has not reflected upon the merits of the case, this Court finds it expedient to set aside the impugned order dated 20.1.2024, and remand the matter back to the concerned revisional Court for its decision afresh on its merits. 8. It is made clear that this Court has not reflected upon the merits of the case. 9. The parties are directed to appear before the concerned revisional Court on 10.5.2024. 10. With the aforesaid directions, the Misc. Criminal Case stands disposed of.