Allahabad High Court
Mohd. Wali vs State Of U.P. And Another on 5 May, 2026
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD Neutral Citation No. - 2026:AHC:102843 HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 12837 of 2025 Mohd. Wali .....Petitioner(s) Versus State of U.P. and Another .....Respondent(s) Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Ved Prakash Pandey Counsel for Respondent(s) : G.A. Court No. - 89 HON'BLE ANIL KUMAR-X, J.
1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Amrit Raj Chaurasiya, learned AGA for State - respondent.
2. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner with a prayer to issue an order or direction setting aside the order dated 03.10.2024, passed by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, 3rd, Shahjahanpur (contained as Annexure No. 4 to this petition), as well as the order dated 20.09.2025, passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Court No. 3, Shahjahanpur.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner was summoned by the learned Trial Court in Complaint Case No. 228 of 2024 (Kamal Yadav vs. Mohammad Wali), under Section 138 of the N.I. Act. After securing bail, an application under Section 143-A(1) of the N.I. Act was filed by the respondent/complainant, which was allowed by the learned Trial Court without proper exercise of judicial discretion, thereby directing the petitioner to pay fifty percent of the cheque amount as interim compensation. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that the complaint filed under Section 138 of the N.I. Act was time-barred, and the learned Trial Court failed to consider that no relief can be granted in a time-barred proceeding. It was also submitted that, being aggrieved by the order dated 3.10.2024, the petitioner preferred Criminal Revision No.297 of 2024 (Mohammad Wali vs. Kamal Yadav and another), which was dismissed without considering that the order under Section 143-A(1) had been passed in a time-barred complaint.
4. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the orders passed by the learned Trial Court.
5. It is apparent that a direction to pay fifty percent of the cheque amount as interim compensation has been issued. The exercise of discretion by the learned Trial Court does not appear to be improper. Insofar as the contention that the complaint under Section 138 of the N.I. Act is time-barred is concerned, the same involves a question of fact, which may be raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner before the concerned Trial Court at the appropriate stage.
6. Accordingly, both the impugned orders are upheld, and this petition is dismissed.
(Anil Kumar-X,J.) May 5, 2026 Mukesh