Real judgements, distilled

Legal Case Shots

Court judgements broken down into the case type, how the decision played out, and the lesson worth remembering, with the full judgement available as a PDF.

Frequently asked questions

Is this suitable for use in legal research and court filings?+

Legal Case Shots is built to help you quickly identify and understand relevant precedent. For citation in pleadings or filings, always verify against the full judgment PDF and current citation format (e.g., 2026 INSC ___).

How is a "lesson learnt" different from the judgment's holding?+

The holding is what the court legally decided. The lesson learnt translates that into a practical takeaway: what a lawyer should factor into case strategy or client advice as a result of this precedent.

Is the full judgment available, or just a summary?+

Both. Each case shows a distilled summary (case type, key holding, and lesson learnt) and links to the full judgment as a PDF for when you need the complete text for research or citation.

Can I filter judgments by date or case type?+

Yes. Use Advanced Filters to narrow results by decision date and by practice area, including Constitutional Law, Criminal Law, Service & Administrative Law, Family Law, Civil Property & Inheritance, and Labour & Industrial Law.

Can I search judgments by a specific judge?+

Yes. You can filter judgments by the judge or bench that decided the case, which is useful for tracking how a particular judge has reasoned on similar issues across multiple rulings.

What is Legal Case Shots?+

Legal Case Shots is a searchable database of Supreme Court of India judgments, each broken down into the case type, the court's key holding, and a practical lesson learnt, with the full judgment available as a PDF for citation or deeper reading.

Arbitration & Commercial LawSupreme Court of India

Rakesh Ranjan Shrivastava vs. The State of Jharkhand & Anr.

Not available · 2024 INSC 205Decided 15 Mar 2024
Not available

Background

The respondent, a business associate of the appellant in various companies, filed a criminal complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (cheque dishonour) against the appellant before the Chief Judicial Magistrate at Bokaro. During these proceedings, a question arose over the trial court's power under Section 143A of the Act to order the accused to pay "interim compensation" to the complainant before the case is even decided: specifically, whether this power is compulsory ("mandatory") or a matter of judicial discretion ("directory").

Decision Breakdown

The Supreme Court held that the power to grant interim compensation under Section 143A(1) is discretionary and directory, not mandatory: the word "may" in the provision cannot be read as "shall." It laid down that a court must record brief reasons showing it considered all relevant factors before granting or refusing interim compensation, including a prima facie evaluation of the complainant's case and the accused's defence, and the accused's financial distress. Interim compensation can only be ordered if the complainant makes out a prima facie case, and if the accused's defence appears prima facie plausible, the court may decline to grant it; if compensation is granted, the court must also separately reason out the appropriate amount. The appeal was partly allowed on these terms.

Lesson Learnt

Being sued for a bounced cheque does not automatically mean a court must order you to pay interim compensation upfront. Courts must exercise reasoned discretion, weighing both sides' cases and the accused's financial situation, before making such an order.

Rakesh Ranjan Shrivastava vs. The State of Jharkhand & Anr. – Legal Case Shots | LegalAware