Dismissed

Ramraj Vishnoe v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC10 Apr 2026NA528/48615/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Allahabad High Court dismissed an application under Section 528 BNSS challenging an order granting interim compensation for cheque dishonour. The court held that the applicant failed to exercise the opportunity to file objections under Section 143-A N.I. Act and found no infirmity in the trial court's order.

What did the court decide?

Application under Section 528 BNSS to quash the order dated 25.11.2022 granting interim compensation was dismissed.

Ramraj Vishnoe vs State of U.P. and Another — Cheque Dishonour | Allahabad HC (2026)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

¶2

APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 48615 of 2025

Ramraj Vishnoe

.....Applicant(s)

Versus

State of U.P. and Another

¶7

.....Opposite Party(s)

¶8

Counsel for Applicant(s)	: Rakesh Kumar Verma
Counsel for Opposite Party(s)	: G.A.

¶9

Court No. - 74

¶10

HON'BLE DEEPAK VERMA, J.

¶11

Heard counsel for the applicant and learned AGA for the State.

¶12

The present 528 B.N.S.S. application has been filed to quash the impugned order dated 25.11.2022 passed by learned Additional Court Moradabad in Complaint Case No.1879 of 2019 (Lalla Babu Dravid vs. Ramraj Vishnoe), under Section 138 N.I.Act, Police Station Civil Lines, District Moradabad, pending in the court of Additional Court (138 N.I.Act), Moradabad.

¶13

It is alleged in the complaint that the applicant executed an agreement to sale for the land Khasra No.436/2 situated in Mukkarabpur, Tehsil Sadar, District Moradabad area 180 square meter in favour of opposite party no.2. The applicant did not execute sale deed in favour of the complainant then opposite party no.2 pressurize the applicant to return the amount received. Applicant returned the amount Rs.4,50,000/- by way of account payee Cheque No.114517. Cheque was presented before Bank and same was dishonoured due to 'insufficient fund'. Thereafter, opposite party no.2 sent statutory notice to applicant by registered post and when applicant did not return the amount, opposite party no.2 filed present complaint. Applicant is summoned by learned trial court. During pendency of the proceeding under section 138 N.I.Act, opposite party no.2 moved application under section 143-A N.I.Act and trial court/prescribed authority issued notice to the applicant for objection under section 143-A N.I.Act. Despite service of notice, applicant did not file any objection, as such, trial court closed the opportunity to file objection and by order dated 25.11.2022 allowed the application of the opposite party no.2, directed the applicant to pay 20% of the disputed amount i.e. Rs.90,000/- as interim compensation to opposite party no.2. Learned counsel for the applicant next submits that the order dated 25.11.2022 is illegal, arbitrary and is liable to be set aside. Applicant was not given opportunity to file objection. Provision under section 143-A of N.I.Act is not mandatory and, as such, the order passed on 25.11.2022 is not based on any genuine reason provided by opposite party no.2-complainant and learned trial court without considering the facts

¶14

NA528 No. 48615 of 2025

¶15

¶16

and circumstances of the case, initiated proceeding against the applicant which is liable to be set aside. Learned counsel for the applicant next submitted that in view of Apex Court judgment in Rakesh Ranjan Shrivastava vs. The State of Jharkhand & another passed in Criminal Appeal No.741 of 2024 , the order passed on 25.11.2022 is not within parameters laid down by the Apex Court.

¶17

Per contra, learned A.G.A. opposed the submission raised by learned counsel for the applicant.

¶18

Considered the submission raised by learned counsel for the applicant. From the record, it is apparent that after notice in proceeding under section 138 N.I.Act, applicant appeared and opposite party no.2 moved application under section 143-A N.I.Act for interim compensation on various grounds. Opportunity to file objection was provided to the applicant but the applicant had not avail that remedy and did not file any objection against the application under section 143-A N.I.Act. Learned Magistrate has considered the evidence that the applicant under section 251 Cr.P.C. has admitted the cheque and signature issued in favour of opposite party no.2. Provision under section 143-A N.I. Act provides that if application is moved by the complainant for interim compensation, then Court has power to grant 20% of the cheque amount in favour of the complainant. Court has observed that on perusal of record, it is apparent that the applicant is not cooperating with the trial proceeding and delaying the trial. Provision of 143-A N.I.Act provides complainant to file application for interim compensation and also grant power to learned Magistrate to grant 20% of the cheque amount to the complainant. Provision under section 143-A N.I.Act has been incorporated in the N.I.Act only to provide some relief to complainant, who has not received amount from the person to whom extended monetary help at the need. The provision also provides that if applicant is acquitted by the trial court, amount given as interim compensation may be realized from the complainant. Section 143A(6) also provides the amount given as interim compensation shall be reduced in fine or amount of compensation awarded. The order passed by learned magistrate does not disclose any infirmity or non-consideration of facts while deciding the application under section 143-A of N.I.Act. The order passed by learned Magistrate does not require any interference and court find that it is within parameters and guidelines laid down by the Apex Court judgement in Rakesh Ranjan Shrivastava (supra).

¶19

In view of above, no interference is warranted by this Court. The present application is, accordingly, dismissed .

¶20

April 10, 2026 SKD

¶21

(Deepak Verma,J.)

¶22

Digitally signed by :- SURJIT KUMAR DEY High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Ramraj Vishnoe v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ramraj Vishnoe v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Karamveer Rajbhar vs State of U.P. and Another

Brij Bihari Nagayach vs State of U.P. and Another

Vipin Kumar vs State of U.P. and Another

Rajeev Kumar Alias Kanhaiya vs State of U.P. and Another

Mohd. Arshad and 3 Others vs State of U.P. and Another

Gaurav Agrawal vs State of U.P. and Another