Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:42262 Court No. - 79 Case :- MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 12899 of 2024 Petitioner :- Sheeshpal Singh Respondent :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Petitioner :- Rajesh Kumar Pandey Counsel for Respondent :- G.A. Hon'ble Saurabh Srivastava,J. 1. Heard Sri Rajesh Kumar Pandey, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned AGA for the State. 2. Present petition has been preferred with the following prayers:- "(i) issue a writ, order or direction to set aside the entire criminal proceedings in Complaint Case no. 1180 of 2020, (Rohit Kumar vs. Sheeshpal Singh) under Section 138 N.I. Act, 1881, Police Station Kotwali Nagar, District Bulandshahr including the order dated 30.07.2024 passed by learned Additional District Judge, F.T.C., Court no. 4, Bulandshahr, in Criminal Revision no. 368 of 2023 (Sheeshpal Singh vs. Rohit Kumar and another) and order dated 17.06.2023 passed by Civil Judge (J.D.) Judicial Magistrate, Court no. 2, Bulandshahr u/s 143 A of N.I. Act, pending in the court of Civil Judge (J.D.)/Judicial Magistrate, Court no. 2, District Bulandshahr;" 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that respondent no. 2/complainant preferred a complaint against the petitioner under Section 138 N.I.Act before learned court concerned wherein, it has been alleged that the complainant had given about Rs.6 lakh vide cheque to the petitioner and for the purpose to return the same, petitioner issued cheque of Rs.6 lakh which was dishonored by the concerned Bank due to insufficient balance. Respondent no. 2 filed an interim compensation application under Section 143A of N.I. before the learned court concerned in the aforesaid complaint case and against the same, petitioner preferred his objection but vide order 17.06.2023 passed by learned Civil Judge (J.D.) Judicial Magistrate, Court no. 2, Bulandshahr, the application for interim compensation was disposed with direction to petitioner to pay 10 % of the cheque amount i.e. Rs. 60,000/- as interim compensation to complainant. 4. Being aggrieved with the order dated 17.06.2023, petitioner preferred criminal revision no. 368 of 2023 before the court concerned but the same has also been dismissed vide order dated 30.07.2024 passed by learned Additional District Judge, F.T.C., Court no. 4, Bulandshahr which has been challenged through the instant petition. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner challenged the impugned orders on several other grounds inter alia on the ground that petitioner never borrowed the money from the complainant and there is no business transaction between the petitioner and complainant. Complainant has also preferred complaint against other family members of the petitioner and it is surprising that how did complainant given so large amount to the entire family members including the other persons and lodged the false complaint case against them. For substantiating his arguments, learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon judgment rendered by Hon'ble Apex Court in case of Rakesh Ranjan Shrivastava vs. State of Jharkhand & another; 2024 (4) SCC 419. 6. Per contra, learned AGA vehemently opposed the prayer sought through the instant petition and supported the orders impugned as legal and justified. 7. During the course of argument a precise query has been raised before learned counsel for petitioner that whether the liability of petitioner in shape of giving cheque to complainant is being disputed or not, but the same has been replied in negative. 8. After hearing the rival submissions extended by learned counsels for the parties and perusing the records, this Court finds that firstly, it is not disputed that petitioner has not given the aforesaid cheque to complainant and the pleadings indicate that some money transaction took place between the parties, secondly from perusal of impugned order dated 17.06.2023, it is evident that learned Magistrate has rightly considered both the case of complainant and the defence and thereafter on the basis of prima facie case made out against petitioner, passed the order for interim compensation in favour of complainant which has been rightly upheld by learned revisional court vide order dated 30.07.2024, hence the judgement relied upon by learned counsel for petitioner in case of Rakesh Ranjan Shrivastava (supra) is not applicable in the instant matter. The purpose of insertion of Section 143A N.I. Act is to provide interim compensation to the complainant during pendency of trial. It is well established that the said power is discretionary in nature as evident word "may" and not "shall" has been used in the provision. This Court while considering the petition will look for the reasons given by the learned court concerned while passing the order under Section 143A(1) of the Act and in the matter in hand, there is no illegality found in the orders impugned and as such no interference is required. 9. Having regard to the aforesaid, this Court is not inclined to entertain this petition in exercise of its supervisory power under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 10. In view of aforesaid discussion, the instant petition being devoid of merit is hereby dismissed. Order Date :- 2.1.2025 Shaswat Digitally signed by :- SHASWAT SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad Digitally signed by :- SHASWAT SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad