MOTHER AYESHA CHILDREN ACADAMY ISHLAMIK WELFARE THROUGH ITS MANAGER MAULANA ANWARversusSTATE OF U.P. AND ANOTHER

         HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

         MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 6219 of 2025

Mother Ayesha Children Acadamy Ishlamik Welfare
Through Its Manager Maulana Anwar                              .....Petitioner(s)
                                    Versus
State of U.P. and Another
                                                             .....Respondent(s)

Counsel for Petitioner(s)          :   Aniruddha Ojha, Lakshman Tripathi
Counsel for Respondent(s)          :   G.A., Jitendra Kumar

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
                                                           A227 No. 6219 of 2025
                                2

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
                                                                    3

                                    9. Accordingly, the petition is dismissed.

                                    April 23, 2026
                                    Ujjawal
                                                                                 (Anil Kumar-X,J.)




Digitally signed by :-
UJJAWAL
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad