HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 12502 of 2023 Court No. - 16 HON'BLE BRIJ RAJ SINGH, J. (Order on I. A. No. 9 of 2025, Application for Recall of Order) 1. This is an application for recall of the order dated 06.11.2025. 2. Heard. 3. The reasons indicated in the affidavit filed in support of the application are sufficient and there is no opposite to the same. 4. On due consideration of aforesaid, the application is allowed and the order dated 06.11.2025 by which the application was rejected for want of prosecution is hereby recalled. 5. The application is restored to its original number. (Order on Application U/s 482 Cr.P.C.) 1. Heard Shri Gopesh Tripathi, learned counsel for the applicant, Shri Rajdeep Singh, learned AGA-I and Shri Desh Deepak Singh, Advocate holding brief of Shri Ashish Chaturvedi, learned counsel for the complainant. 2. The present application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed seeking quashing the impugned order dated 20.03.2023 passed by Judicial Magistrate/VIIth Addl. Civil Judge, (J.D.), Raebareli (in short "trial Court"), in Complaint No. 3873 of 2020, under Section 143A of Negotiable Instrument Act, Police Station - Kotwali Nagar, District - Raebareli and the impugned order dated 24.11.2023 passed by Sessions Versus Counsel for Applicant(s) : Gopesh Tripathi Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A., Anil Kumar Tiwari, Ashish Chaturvedi Daljeet Singh @ Daljeet Singh Saluja .....Applicant(s) State Of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Home, Civil Sectt. Lko. And Another .....Opposite Party(s) Judge, Raebareli in Criminal Revision No. 200 of 2023, whereby the revision preferred against the order dated 20.03.2023 has been dismissed. 3. It the case of the applicant that the opposite party no.2 got issued the notice under Section 138 of Negotiable Instrument Act on the wrong facts, which was duly replied by the applicant through his counsel Shri J.P. Srivastava on 01.06.2020. The opposite party no.2 filed complaint case on 02.06.2020 under Section 138 of Negotiable Instrument Act against the applicant on the false and fabricated facts. 4. Shri Gopesh Tripathi, learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that the applicant never issued any cheques to opposite party no.2. He had written a letter to Branch Manager on 20.03.2020 for making stop payment of cheques. The applicant was summoned on 28.02.2022 by the trial Court. He appeared before the trial Court and without adducing evidence on record on the application moved by the opposite party no.2, under Section 143A of Negotiable Instrument Act, the order has been passed by which direction has been issued to provide 20% of the total amount of the compensation as prayed by the opposite party no.2. 5. He has further submitted that the impugned order dated 20.03.2023 is a non-speaking order and the revision preferred by the applicant against the impugned order dated 20.03.2023 has also been dismissed vide the impugned order dated 24.11.2023 without application of mind. 6. He has further submitted that the requirement under Section 143A of Negotiable Instrument Act is not mandatory but directory in nature. The trial Court, while passing the impugned order dated 20.03.2023, has not recorded the findings and has observed that the compensation is mandatory. 7. He has placed reliance on paragraphs 12, 18 and 22 of the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court passed in the case of Rakesh Ranjan Shrivastava v. State of Jharkhand, (2024) 4 SCC 419 and has submitted that Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed that the requirement under Section 143A of Negotiable Instrument Act is directory not mandatory in nature and the trial Court has passed the order in utter violation of aforesaid judgment. 8. On the other hand, Shri Rajdeep Singh, learned AGA-I and Shri Desh A482 No. 12502 of 2023 2 Deepak Singh, Advocate holding brief of Shri Ashish Chaturvedi, learned counsel for the complainant have submitted that under Section 143A of Negotiable Instrument Act, the trial Court has passed the order after going through the evidence as well as after considering the objections filed by the applicant. 9. It has been further submitted that Section 143A of Negotiable Instrument Act provides notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, the Court trying an offence under Section 138 may order the drawer of the cheque to pay interim compensation to the complainant (a) in a summary trial or a summons case, where he pleads not guilty to the accusation made in the complaint; and (b) n any other case, upon framing of charge. 10. It has been lastly submitted that the trial Court has passed the reasoned and speaking order after considering the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court as well as the statutory requirement. 11. After going through the record, I find that the trial Court has passed the detailed order and after considering the various judgments of Hon'ble Supreme Court and it has been observed that the applicant has to provide compensation of 20% of the total amount claimed by the complainant. The requirement under Section 143A of Negotiable Instrument Act is statutory that has been complied with. It is indicated in the fact of the complaint itself that the cheque has been signed by the applicant though he has filed FIR after one month mentioning that the cheques were signed by him on the gun-point. The important fact is to be noted that the cheques were issued on 28.11.2019, however, the FIR was lodged on 31.12.2019. 12. For the reasons aforesaid, I find no illegality and infirmity in the impugned order dated 20.03.2023, affirmed by the impugned order dated 24.11.2023. The application is devoid of merits and is, accordingly, rejected. December 5, 2025/Mohit Singh/- A482 No. 12502 of 2023 3 (Brij Raj Singh,J.) Digitally signed by :- MOHIT SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench