HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 39722 of 2025 Court No. - 76 HON'BLE VIKRAM D. CHAUHAN, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A for the State. 2. This application has been filed by the applicant for quashing the order dated 21.07.2025 passed by the Vth Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division), Court No. 18, Basti in Warrant of Summons Criminal Case No. 7408 of 2022 (Rakesh Kumar Vs. Indrawati Devi) under Section 138 N.I. Act, Police Station Kotwali, District Basti. 3. It is submitted by learned counsel for the applicant that by order dated 21.7.2025 the trial court has directed for deposit of Rs. 1 lakh under Section 143A of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. Learned counsel for the applicant further submits that applicant is a poor person and as such is not in a position to pay the amount. It is further submitted by learned counsel for the applicant that parameters laid down in the Rakesh Ranjan Srivastava Vs. State of Jharkhand and another, (2024) 3 S.C.R. 438 has not been considered in the impugned order. It is further submitted by learned counsel for the applicant that as per the admitted case of the complainant loan was taken by the husband of the complainant and the cheque was taken for supply of machinery from the applicant, however, machinery was not supplied and the cheque was sent to the clearance. Learned counsel for the applicant further submits that impugned order is not tenable under law. 4. It is to be seen that in the present case trial court by impugned order Versus Counsel for Applicant(s) : Ravindra Prakash Srivastava Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A. Indrawati Devi .....Applicant(s) State of U.P. and Another .....Opposite Party(s) dated 21.7.2025 has directed to deposit a sum of Rs. 1 lakh within thirty days under Section 143A of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. Provisions of Section 143A of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 is quoted hereinbelow:- "143A. Power to direct interim compensation.—(1) Notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), 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) in any other case, upon framing of charge. (2) The interim compensation under sub-section (1) shall not exceed twenty per cent. of the amount of the cheque. (3) The interim compensation shall be paid within sixty days from the date of the order under sub-section (1), or within such further period not exceeding thirty days as may be directed by the Court on sufficient cause being shown by the drawer of the cheque. (4) If the drawer of the cheque is acquitted, the Court shall direct the complainant to repay to the drawer the amount of interim compensation, with interest at the bank rate as published by the Reserve Bank of India, prevalent at the beginning of the relevant financial years, within sixty days from the date of the order, or within such further period not exceeding thirty days as may be directed by the Court on sufficient cause being shown by the complainant. (5) The interim compensation payable under this section may be recovered as if it were a fine under section 421 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974). (6) The amount of fine imposed under section 138 or the amount of compensation awarded under section 357 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), shall be reduced by the amount paid or recovered as interim compensation under this section." 5. It is to be seen that the stand of learned counsel for the applicant is that applicant is a poor person and as such is not in a position to deposit the amount. It has not been shown before this Court as to what documentary material were produced before the court concerned in support of the claim of the applicant that applicant is a poor person. The submission of learned NA528 No. 39722 of 2025 2 counsel for the applicant is that cheque in question was given for supply of machinery and machinery was not supplied is a question of fact which is to be considered by the trial court. 6. A query was made to learned counsel for the applicant to show from the defence raised before the trial court that no prima facie case is made out, learned counsel for the applicant could not show any defence raised by the applicant before the trial court nor learned counsel for the applicant has demonstrated from the record of the trial court that applicant had raised the plea with regard to supply of machinery before the trial court or contract for supply of machinery. Such pleas were never raised before the trial court and as such this Court cannot permit the applicant to raise the same before this Court. Insofar as non-compliance of the judgment in the case of Rakesh Ranjan Srivastava (supra) is concerned, a perusal of the impugned order would go to show that trial court has considered the aspect with regard to the parameters laid down in the aforesaid judgment. Prima facie the aforesaid case has been considered by the trial court. No prima facie case is made out in favour of the applicant. Accordingly, the application under Section 528 BNSS is dismissed. October 14, 2025 VMA NA528 No. 39722 of 2025 3 (Vikram D. Chauhan,J.) Digitally signed by :- VISHWA MOHAN ARORA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad