HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 12269 of 2025 Court No. - 88 HON'BLE VINOD DIWAKAR, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned A.G.A. for the State. 2. The present petition has been filed assailing the order dated 04.06.2025 passed by the learned Additional District & Sessions Judge, Court No. 6, Muzaffar Nagar in Criminal Revision No. 28 of 2025, as well as the order dated 23.10.2024 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Court No. 4, Muzaffar Nagar in Complaint Case No. 8454/9 of 2024, under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the learned trial Court has erred in directing the petitioner to pay 15% of the cheque amount as interim compensation under Section 143-A of the Negotiable Instruments Act. It is contended that the Supreme Court in Rakesh Ranjan Srivastava v. State of Jharkhand and Another, [(2024) 3 S.C.R. 438], has categorically held that the power under Section 143-A of the Act is discretionary, requiring Courts to consider relevant factors before ordering interim compensation, as it affects accused's rights and cannot be arbitrarily enforced, as such the impugned order directing 15% of the cheque amount is illegal and the learned trial Court has not recorded its subjective satisfaction. 4. After hearing learned counsel for the petitioner and perusal of the record, its observed that the petitioner in his statement recorded under Section 251 Cr.P.C. himself admitted handing over the cheque to the complainant and there is no forgery in presentation or enforcement of the cheque. In such circumstances, the discretion exercised by the learned trial Court in directing payment of interim compensation cannot be said to be arbitrary or perverse. The defences raised by the petitioner pertain to the merits of the transaction and shall be adjudicated upon during the course of trial. 5. This Court finds no illegality, irregularity, or perversity in the impugned orders warranting interference under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Versus Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Atul Kumar Kushwaha Counsel for Respondent(s) : G.A. Amit Dhiman .....Petitioner(s) State of U.P. and Another .....Respondent(s) Accordingly, the petition lacks merit and is dismissed. October 14, 2025 Shafique A227 No. 12269 of 2025 2 (Vinod Diwakar,J.) Digitally signed by :- SAFIKUR RAHAMAN High Court of Judicature at Allahabad