Interim compensation under cheque dishonour law is discretionary, and interference is unwarranted where the defence lacks supporting material.

Interim compensation under Section 143A of the Negotiable Instruments Act is a discretionary power, and the court deciding such an application must record brief reasons showing consideration of the prima facie case, the accused's defence, and any demonstrated financial hardship. In the present matter, the challenged orders were sustained because the court had considered the plea that the settlement was coerced and the cheques were post-dated, but found no complaint or other material supporting coercion and noted the absence of stop-payment instructions. The challenge was treated as an attempt to argue the merits of the criminal complaint, which did not justify interference at the stage of interim compensation.

---

---

Issues: Whether the orders granting interim compensation under Section 143A of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, and dismissing the revision petition called for interference in exercise of inherent/revisional jurisdiction.

Analysis: Section 143A confers a discretionary power, not a mandatory one, and the court deciding such an application must record brief reasons showing consideration of the relevant factors, including the prima facie case, the defence set up by the accused, and financial hardship where shown. The challenged orders reflected consideration of the defence that the settlement was coerced and that the cheques were post-dated, but found no supporting complaint or other material showing coercion, and also noted that no stop-payment instructions had been issued. The court further held that the challenge was essentially an attempt to argue the merits of the criminal complaint, which could not justify interference at the stage of interim compensation.

Conclusion: The orders granting interim compensation were upheld, and no interference was warranted with the dismissal of the revision petition.

---