Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:32740 Court No. - 77 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 42643 of 2024 Applicant :- Ajay Pratap Singh Alias Vipin And Another Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Vijit Saxena Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.,Keshav Hari Dixit Hon'ble Arun Kumar Singh Deshwal,J. 1. Heard Sri Vijit Saxena, learned counsel for the applicants, Sri Keshav Hari Dixit, learned counsel for opposite party No.2 and Sri Kamlesh Kr. Tripathi, learned A.G.A. for the State. 2. The instant application has been filed seeking quashing of the order dated 23.8.2024 passed in Criminal Revision No. 289 of 2023 as well as orders dated 10.8.2023 and 8.10.2024 passed in case No. 820 of 2019, under Section 138 N.I. Act, P.S. Friends Colony, District Etawah. 3. Fact giving rise to the present controversy is that a complaint was filed by opposite party No.2 against the applicants and during pendency of the complaint an application was filed by opposite party No.2 under Section 143-A N.I. Act, seeking interim compensation which was allowed by the impugned order dated 10.8.2023. 4. Contention of learned counsel for the applicants is that while passing the impugned order, the court below has not recorded any finding, regarding prima facie case; defence raised by the applicants and; also the financial distress of the accused. There is no finding that the applicants have adopted the delaying tactics to delay the trial of the proceeding in question. 5. Per contra, learned counsel for opposite party No.2 submits that the court below has not committed any illegality and the court below while passing the impugned order duly took into consideration the judgement of the Karnatka High Court dated 17.2.2022 passed in the case of Smt. Vijaya vs. Shekhapappa and others, Criminal Petition No. 100261 of 2022 wherein it is observed that if the accused adopts tactics of delaying the trial, the concerned court can direct for payment of interim compensation. It is further submitted that though the court below can award interim compensation during the pendency of the proceeding under Section 143-A N.I. Act up to 20%, but the court below took a lenient view and awarded only 10% of the cheque amount. 6. Learned A.G.A. also adopted the contention of the counsel for opposite party No.2. 7. After hearing the submissions of learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of the record, it appears that the court below while passing the impugned order has recorded the finding that the accused persons have not accepted their guilt and prima facie case is made out and approach of the accused is to delay the trial. 8. From perusal of the record, it appears that no reasoning was given by the court below on reaching the conclusion that the delaying tactics was adopted by the applicants and defence of the applicants was also not considered. The Apex Court in the case of Rakesh Ranjan Shrivastava vs. The State of Jharkhand and another; Criminal Appeal No. 741 of 2024, decided on 15.3.2024, has observed that while passing order under Section 143-A N.I. Act the concerned court would have to prima facie evaluate the case on merit as well as the merits of the defence pleaded by the accused in reply to the application u/s 143-A(1) N.I. Act. It is also observed that at this stage the court concerned should also consider the financial distress of the accused and also the reasoning for granting quantum of the interim compensation as well as nature of transaction and relationship, if any, between the parties. Paragraph No. 16 of the Rakesh Ranjan Shrivastava (supra) is quoted as under:- "16. When the court deals with an application under Section 143A of the N.I. Act, the Court will have to prima facie evaluate the merits of the case made out by the complainant and the merits of the defence pleaded by the accused in the reply to the application under sub-section (1) of Section 143A. The presumption under Section 139 of the N.I. Act, by itself, is no ground to direct the payment of interim compensation. The reason is that the presumption is rebuttable. The question of applying the presumption will arise at the trial. Only if the complainant makes out a prima facie case, a direction can be issued to pay interim compensation. At this stage, the fact that the accused is in financial distress can also be a consideration. Even if the Court concludes that a case is made out for grant of interim compensation, the Court will have to apply its mind to the quantum of interim compensation to be granted. Even at this stage, the Court will have to consider various factors such as the nature of the transaction, the relationship, if any, between the accused and the complainant and the paying capacity of the accused. If the defence of the accused is found to be prima facie a plausible defence, the Court may exercise discretion in refusing to grant interim compensation. We may note that the factors required to be considered, which we have set out above, are not exhaustive. There could be several other factors in the facts of a given case, such as, the pendency of a civil suit, etc. While deciding the prayer made under Section 143A, the Court must record brief reasons indicating consideration of all the relevant factors." 9. From perusal of the impugned order, it appears that the court below has failed to consider the guidelines laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Rakesh Ranjan Shrivastava (supra), therefore, the impugned orders prima facie are erroneous and, hence deserves to be quashed. Accordingly, the impugned orders dated 10.8.2023 passed by the A.C.J.M., Court No.3, Etawah in case No. 820 of 2019, under Section 138 N.I. Act as well as order dated 23.8.2024 passed by Additional District Judge, Court No.7, Etawah in Criminal Revision No. 289 of 2023 are hereby quashed subject to condition to deposit 5% of cheque amount. 10. Court below is directed to pass a fresh order within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 11. It is made clear that the amount deposited by the applicants shall be adjusted towards the award of interim compensation by the court below in pursuance of the fresh order. 12. With the aforesaid observation, the application is disposed of. Order Date :- 6.3.2025 Vandana Digitally signed by :- VANDANA GAUTAM High Court of Judicature at Allahabad