HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 6219 of 2025 Court No. - 89 HON'BLE ANIL KUMAR-X, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Amrit Raj, learned AGA for the State are present. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner has prayed for a direction to quash impugned orders dated 19.10.2024 passed by learned Additional Court Varanasi by which learned court has allowed the application filed by respondent no.2 U/S 143A N.I. Act and its Revisional order dated 07.05.2025 passed by Learned Additional District and Session Court, Varanasi in Criminal Revision no.443 of 2024(Mother Ayesha Children Acadamy Ishlamik Welfare Through its Manager Maulana Anwar Vs Sate of U.P. and anothers). 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that Complaint Case No. 4878 of 2023 (Radhika Gyan Bhandar vs. Mother Ayesha Children Academy) was instituted against the petitioner by the respondent under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. It is submitted that the allegation in the complaint is that a cheque issued by the petitioner towards payment for books supplied by the respondent was dishonoured in the year 2022. Learned counsel further submitted that the cheque in question was, in fact, issued in the year 2016 as a security for business transactions which had taken place in the preceding years. It is contended that the cheque was misused by the respondent, as the petitioner's bank account had already been closed in the year 2019, and therefore, there was no occasion for the respondent to present the cheque in the year 2022. It is thus argued that the respondent has failed to establish a prima facie case. 4. It is further submitted that the learned trial court, while passing the order dated 19.10.2024, failed to consider that the complaint lacks specific details Versus Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Aniruddha Ojha, Lakshman Tripathi Counsel for Respondent(s) : G.A., Jitendra Kumar Mother Ayesha Children Acadamy Ishlamik Welfare Through Its Manager Maulana Anwar .....Petitioner(s) State of U.P. and Another .....Respondent(s) of the alleged business transactions between the parties. It is also contended that the financial distress of the petitioner was not taken into consideration. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner preferred Criminal Revision No. 443 of 2024 (Mother Ayesha Children Academy Ishlamik Welfare through its Manager Maulana Anwar vs. State of U.P. and another), which too was dismissed without properly considering the issues raised. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court passed in Rakesh Ranjan Shrivastava vs. The State of Jharkhand and another 2024 INSC 205 the said judgement has clearly held that an order under Section 143 A of NI Act can only be passed after the concerned court 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. The financial distress of the accused also requires a consideration. It has also been directed that an order of interim compensation can be passed, only if the complainant makes out a prima facie case. Learned counsel submitted that both courts below have not properly considered the judgment of Supreme Court in Rakesh Ranjan Shrivastava (supra) and have passed orders in violation of the directions given therein 6. Learned counsel for the respondent submitted that the contentions of the petitioner are contrary to the record. It is submitted that the respondent has clearly disclosed the details of the transactions in the complaint and has specifically stated that the cheque was issued in the year 2022, which was subsequently dishonoured. It is further submitted that the petitioner has not denied the business transactions between the parties and, therefore, cannot claim that the cheque was not issued or was misused. 7. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record, including the order dated 19.10.2024 passed by the learned trial court in Complaint Case No. 4878 of 2023. It is apparent that the petitioner has not disputed the issuance of the cheque in question. Further, in his statement recorded under Section 251 Cr.P.C., the petitioner has admitted issuance of the cheque in favour of the respondent. In such circumstances, it cannot be said that the respondent/complainant has failed to establish a prima facie case. Moreover, the petitioner has not raised any specific plea regarding financial distress before the courts below. The defence sought to be raised at this stage cannot be considered a plausible ground to avoid payment of interim compensation under Section 143-A of the Negotiable Instruments Act. 8. In view of the above, this Court finds that the courts below have not committed any error in allowing the application filed by the respondent under Section 143-A of the Negotiable Instruments Act. A227 No. 6219 of 2025 2 9. Accordingly, the petition is dismissed. April 23, 2026 Ujjawal A227 No. 6219 of 2025 3 (Anil Kumar-X,J.) Digitally signed by :- UJJAWAL High Court of Judicature at Allahabad