HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 30086 of 2025 Court No. - 75 HON'BLE VIKAS BUDHWAR, J. 1. Heard Shri Sanjeet Kumar Mishra, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri S.P. Singh, learned State Law Officer for the State as well as Shri Rakesh Kumar Srivastava, counsel for the opposite party no. 2. 2. This application under Section 528 BNSS has been filed by the applicant to quash the impugned judgment and order dated 22.11.2024 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Court No. 2, Meerut in Case No. 909 of 2022 (Vijay Oberoi Vs. Sri Shakir Ali Khan) as well as judgment and order dated 17.07.2025 passed by learned Additional Session Judge, Court No. 1, Meerut in Criminal Revision No. 924 of 2024 (Shakir Ali Vs. State of U.P. and another), U/s 138 of N.I. Act, Police Station Sadar Bazar, District Meerut Pending in the court of learned Judicial Magistrate, Court No. 2, Meerut. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that a complaint stood lodged by the opposite party no. 2 against the applicant with an allegation that with respect to discharge of a liability, the applicant had drawn a cheque bearing No.000043 of Rs. 5,00,000/- dated 27.12.2021 which came to be dishonoured on 29.12.2021 followed by a statutory demand notice and the applicant was summoned and an application under Section 143-A of the N.I. Act stood preferred by the opposite party no. 2 seeking 20% of the compensation which on objection came to be allowed on 22.11.2024 awarding 5% interim compensation to the tune of Rs. 25,000/- out of the total amount of Rs. 5,00,000/- against which the applicant preferred a Versus Counsel for Applicant(s) : Sanjeet Kumar Mishra Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A., Rakesh Kumar Srivastava Shakir Ali Khan .....Applicant(s) State of U.P. and Another .....Opposite Party(s) criminal revision No. 924 of 2024 which was rejected by the revisional court by virtue of the order dated 17.07.2025.; 4. Questioning both the orders, the applicant has filed the present application. 5. Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that both the orders cannot be sustained for the simple reason that the court below has not evaluated on the merits of the case on the prima facie basis bearing in mind the case set up by the complainant and the accused the financial distress of the accused and the quantum while taking into account the relationship of the parties and the nature of the transactions. He submits that though the applicant herein had taken a loan of Rs. 1 lakh only and which it had paid but the security cheque which was the opposite party no. 2 was misutiltized and got it dishonoured thus there is no legal liability or not. Submission is that the mandate of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Rakesh Ranjan Srivastava v. State of Jharkand and another; [2024] 3 S.C.R. 438 has not been considered. 6. Learned State Law Officer as well as Shri Rakesh Kumar Srivastava, counsel for the opposite party no. 2 on the other hand submit that there has been consideration of the para-meters as laid down in the case of Rakesh Ranjan Srivastava (supra) by the trial court as well as by the revisional court in the revision. He submits that each and every aspect of the matter has been considered and the court below has kind enough to decline the request for grant of interim compensation to the tune of 20% while confining it to 5%. 7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the records carefully. 8. Apparently, the allegation in the complaint is with regard to the dishonour of a cheque of Rs. 5 lakhs. The objection of the applicant is that only Rs. 1 lakh was taken for loan which was paid off and the security cheques were misutilized. According to him, the said aspect of the matter has not been considered. 9. A perusal of the order passed by the trial court in revisional court would NA528 No. 30086 of 2025 2 go to show that the court below has considered the said aspect of the matter and has accorded interim compensation to the tune of 5% out of the total amount of Rs. 5 lakhs being Rs. 25,000/-. 10. On a pointed query being raised to the learned counsel for the applicant whether there is any document avaiable on record or the pleadings set forth by the applicant before the court below regarding financial distress, there is nothing on record except a statement of fact that the total amount which was liable to be paid was Rs. 1 lakh and it was already being paid. 11. In the opinion of the Court, at the stage of determination of interim compensation, the criteria has laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Rakesh Ranjan Srivastava (supra) regarding prima facie evaluation of the merits of the case of the complainant and the accused, financial distress of the accused, relationship between the parties and the nature of the transactions with respect to the quantum has already been considered and the Court had reduced the relief sought by the opposite party no. 2 while confining it to 5% instead of 20%. Since there are no convincible documents available on record and the revisional court has already exercise its jurisdiction and passed an order affirming the order to the trial court, thus, this Court does not find the present case is to be fit case for interference, accordingly, the interference is declined, the application stands rejected. September 22, 2025 A. Prajapati NA528 No. 30086 of 2025 3 (Vikas Budhwar,J.) Digitally signed by :- ASHUTOSH KUMAR PRAJAPATI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad