JUDGMENT : By way of this petition, filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Code, the petitioner seeks quashing of order dated 19.02.2021, passed by the Court of learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No.2, Shimla, District Shimla, H.P., in Complaint No.19613 of 14/12, titled M/s ADS Dhalli, Shimla Versus Sh. Rahul Huddon (Bunty), filed by the respondent herein against the present petitioner under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, in terms whereof, the accused i.e. the petitioner herein has been directed by the learned Court below to deposit 20% of the cheque amount as interim compensation within sixty days as from the date of passing of the order. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner has primarily argued that the impugned order is not sustainable in the eyes of law, for the reason that as the cheque amount is huge and as the petitioner is not in a position to comply with the direction so issued by the learned Court below, therefore, the same needs to be quashed and set aside. No other point was urged. 3. Having carefully gone through the order passed by the learned Court below, which stands impugned by way of this petition and after taking into consideration the submissions which have been made by learned counsel for the petitioner, this Court is of the considered view that the present petition deserves dismissal. 4. Section 143A of the Negotiable Instruments Act provides for payment of interim compensation. Subsection (2) thereof provides that interim compensation under subsection (1) shall not exceed 20% of the amount of cheque. It is not the contention of the petitioner that the order of interim compensation has been passed by the learned Trial Court in violation of the provisions of subsection (1) of Section 143A. That being the case, the direction which has been passed by the learned Trial Court, in terms whereof, the petitioner herein has been directed to deposit 20% of the cheque amount as interim compensation, cannot be said to be a bad direction, because this direction has been passed by the learned Court below in exercise of powers conferred upon it by the provisions of the statute itself. 5. 5. Coming to the contention of learned counsel for the petitioner that the impugned order is liable to be set aside as the petitioner is not in a position to deposit the said amount, all that this Court can observe is that alleged inability of the petitioner to comply with the direction passed by the learned Trial Court cannot per se render the order to be bad in law so as to entitle the petitioner to invoke the extra ordinary jurisdiction of this Court, so conferred upon it under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. 6. Accordingly, in view of the above discussion, as this Court does not finds any merit in the present petition, the same is dismissed, so also the pending miscellaneous applications, if any.