SUAIB KHANversusSTATE OF U.P. AND ANOTHER

         HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
                 APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 49865 of 2025

Suaib Khan
                                                             .....Applicant(s)
                                    Versus

State of U.P. and Another
                                                                 .....Opposite
                                                                       Party(s)

Counsel for Applicant(s)      : Prashant Pandey
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : Babita Srivastava, G.A., Kumar
                                Ashutosh Srivastava, Ritesh Kumar
                                Srivastava

Court No. - 73
                      HON'BLE DEEPAK VERMA, J.

1. Supplementary affidavit filed today is taken on record.

2. Heard learned counsel for the applicant; learned counsel for the
opposite party No.2 and learned A.G.A for the State as also perused the
record.

3. Instant application has been filed to set aside the order dated
16.10.2025 passed by learned Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division)-3,
Kanpur Nagar in Complaint Case No.36548/2025, Kamil Hussain versus
Suaib Khan, Under Section 138 Negotiable Instrument Act, Police Station
Colonelganj, District Kanpur Nagar pending in the court of learned
Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division)-3, Kanpur Nagar.

4. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant is innocent
and has been falsely implicated in the present proceedings due to malice.
It is further submitted that the learned court below, without properly
considering the objections filed by the applicant, allowed the application
filed by opposite party no. 2 under Section 143-A of the Negotiable
Instruments Act. It is also contended that the applicant is not in a financial
position to deposit the amount as directed by the learned court below vide
order dated 16.10.2025. It is argued that no offence is made out against
the applicant and that the impugned order has been passed without proper
application of judicial mind.
                                                                                            NA528 No. 49865 of 2025
                                                                   2


                                    5. Learned A.G.A. as well as learned counsel for the opposite party No.2
                                    has vehemently opposed the prayer for quashing the proceedings of the
                                    aforesaid case and has submitted that the order impugned do not suffer
                                    from any illegality or infirmity.

                                    6. From the material available on record, it appears that the applicant has
                                    admitted his signature on the cheque and has also admitted that the
                                    cheque was given to opposite party no. 2, allegedly to avoid payment of
                                    interim maintenance to the complainant. It is also admitted that the
                                    cheque was dishonoured by the bank. The learned trial court, upon
                                    consideration of the material on record, has formed an opinion that
                                    interim compensation ought to be awarded and that sufficient grounds
                                    exist for the same. It is further evident that the amount so awarded is
                                    recoverable from the applicant in accordance with the provisions of
                                    Section 143-A(4) of the Negotiable Instruments Act.

                                    7. The submissions raised by learned counsel for the applicant involve
                                    disputed questions of fact, which cannot be adjudicated at this stage.
                                    Upon consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case, no
                                    interference is warranted by this Court in exercise of its jurisdiction.

                                    8. Accordingly, the present application is dismissed.


                                                                                             (Deepak Verma,J.)
                                    March 18, 2026
                                    KJ




Digitally signed by :-
KAMARJAHAN ANSARI
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad