1 2025:HHC:23186 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA Cr. MMO No. 653 of 2024 Reserved on : 5.5.2025 Decided on : 17.7.2025 Lokeshwar Dutt Sharma …Petitioner Versus JCC Bank …Respondent ___________________________________________ Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Virender Singh, Judge Whether approved for reporting? ________________________________________________ For the Petitioner : Mr. P.S.Goverdhan, Senior Advocate with Mr. Rakesh Thakur, Advocate. For the Respondents :Mr. Arvind Sharma, Advocate. Virender Singh, Judge The petitioner has filed the present petition, under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for quashing/setting aside the order dated 20.4.2024, passed by the Court of learned Sessions Judge, Solan, District Solan, H.P. (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Appellate Court’), in Application No. 834-S/4 of 2023, in Criminal Appeal No. 28-S/1 of 2022, titled as, ‘Lokeshwar Dutt 2 2025:HHC:23186 Sharma versus Jogindra Central Co-operative Bank, Kandaghat’, which was decided on 9.6.2023. 2. The factual position, in nut-shell, is that petitioner and his wife Rita Devi had availed house loan of Rs. 16,00,000/- and 15,00,000/-, respectively, from the respondent-Bank, but they could not re-pay the amount regularly, as such, on the basis of security cheques, obtained from them, complaints were filed against them. Consequently, the respondent-Bank had initiated four criminal complaints, before the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Kandaghat, District Solan, H.P. (hereinafter referred to as ‘the trial Court’), the details of which have been mentioned as under: i) Complaint No. 65-3 of 2017 (cheque amount of Rs.14,80,666/-_; ii) Complaint No. 83-3 of 2016 (cheque amount of Rs. 3,36,657/-); iii) Complaint No. 64-3 of 2017 (cheque amount of Rs.16,25,526/-); and iv) Complaint No. 82-3 of 2017 (cheque amount of Rs. 1,73,990/-). 3. During pendency of those complaints, before the learned trial Court, the petitioner had paid a sum of Rs. 1,73,990/- in complaint No. 82-3 of 2017, on 29.4.2022. 3 2025:HHC:23186 The petitioner was convicted and sentenced by the learned trial Court and against those judgment(s) of conviction and order(s) of sentence, he has preferred the appeal(s), before the learned Appellate Court. The respondent-Bank also filed cross-appeal(s)/revision(s) against the impugned judgment(s), passed by the learned trial Court. 4. In complaint No. 82-3 of 2017, the petitioner was sentenced to undergo imprisonment, till rising of the Court, considering the fact that he had already paid the cheque amount to the respondent-Bank, as such, he had not preferred any appeal. However, respondent-Bank filed Criminal Appeal bearing No. 9-S/10 of 2022. 5. Petitioner has moved the application for suspension of sentence, and in pursuance of directions, passed by the learned trial Court, 25% of the cheque amount was deposited by the petitioner, which was released, in favour of the respondent/Bank. 6. During pendency of those appeals, the matter had been settled and the appeals were disposed of by a common order, dated 9.6.2023, Annexure P-2. As per the terms and conditions of the compromise, the entire liability of the cheques, involved in all the four cases, was 4 2025:HHC:23186 settled for a sum of Rs. 50,00,000/-, to be paid, on or before 31.10.2023, failing which, the appeals, preferred by the petitioner/accused would be deemed to have been dismissed as withdrawn. The statements of the parties, in this regard, were also recorded. In compliance of the said settlement, which was entered upon between the parties, on 9.6.2023, petitioner had deposited a sum of Rs. 41,05,292/-, against the settled amount of Rs. 50,00,000/-, till 20.4.2024. 7. Thereafter, an application for extension of time was moved. During the pendency of the said application, the petitioner has deposited a sum of Rs. 8,50,000/- in the loan account of wife of the petitioner. Thus, the petitioner is stated to have deposited a sum of Rs. 41,05,292/-, till passing of impugned order dated 20.4.2024. 8. Admittedly, the petitioner could not deposit the entire settled amount, on account of his weak financial condition. The petitioner could not even sell his land, as the same was hypothecated with the respondent-Bank, as collateral security. 5 2025:HHC:23186 9. It has further been averred in the petition that the petitioner had also approached the respondent-Bank with the request to cooperate with him, in selling the land, enabling him to discharge his liability, in terms of order dated 9.6.2023, but, no heed was paid. 10. Thereafter, the petitioner had again approached the learned Appellate Court, with an application for extension of time to make the payment of remaining amount of Rs. 17,44,708/-. He has also annexed the draft of Rs. 2,50,000/-, alongwith the application for extension. The respondent-Bank is stated to have contested the application for extension of time, but admitted to have received a sum of Rs. 34,55,252/-, till 19.1.2024. 11. During the pendency of this application, petitioner is stated to have deposited a sum of Rs.8,50,000/-, towards the settled amount. However, respondent-Bank did not encash the draft of Rs. 2.5 lacs, submitted by him with the extension application. Thereafter, the learned Appellate Court has dismissed the application for extension of time, on 20.4.2024. 12. The said order has been assailed by way of the present petition, on the ground that the respondent-Bank 6 2025:HHC:23186 had already received much higher amount than the loan amount, as respondent-Bank had already received a sum of Rs. 42,00,000/-. The petitioner has given his weak financial condition to be the reason for default in making the payment of the settled amount. The petitioner is stated to be still ready to abide by the terms and conditions of the compromise. 13. The order passed by the learned Appellate Court, by virtue of which, the application for extension of time, has been dismissed, has been assailed, before this Court, mainly on the ground that the application was simply dismissed, by the learned Appellate Court, as according to the learned Appellate Court, the extension of time amounts to reviewing its order dated 9.6.2023. However, according to the petitioner, the bonafide efforts, made by him, have not been considered. 14. Reiterating the fact that he had paid the substantial amount of Rs. 41,05,292/-, the petitioner has assailed the order dated 20.4.2024 on the ground that the learned Appellate Court has not considered the fact that during pendency of the application for extension of time, the respondent-Bank has received a sum of Rs. 7 2025:HHC:23186 8,50,000/-, and he had also annexed the draft of Rs. 2,50,000/-, at the time of filing the application. 15. According to the petitioner, he only owes a sum of Rs. 8,94,708/- to the respondent-Bank. In order to show his bonafide, the petitioner annexed draft No. 012600, dated 11.6.2024, amounting to Rs. 5,50,000/-, alongwith the petition. According to the petitioner, only a sum of Rs. 3,44,708/- is now due against him. 16. On the basis of above facts, a prayer has been made to allow the petition by extending the time to comply with the order dated 9.6.2023, and he may kindly be permitted to deposit the balance amount of Rs. 3,44,708/-. 17. A draft, which has been annexed with the petition by the petitioner was returned to him, vide order dated 2.4.2025. Order dated 2.4.2025, passed by this Court is reproduced, as under: “Time sought to deposit the remaining amount of settlement. Needful be done within two weeks. The draft which has been annexed with the petition is ordered to be returned to the learned counsel for the petitioner, against proper receipt.” 18. In this case, learned counsel for the respondent- Bank has also placed on record a print-out of e-mail, by virtue of which, the respondent-Bank has intimated its 8 2025:HHC:23186 counsel that it has no intention for any settlement and requested him to defend its case for recovery of entire outstanding amount of Rs. 16,06,089/-, as on 10.4.2024, plus future charges and future interest. 19. As per the documents, annexed with the petition, the matter has been settled between the parties, before the Appellate Court, on 9.6.2023. Settlement was with regard to all the four Criminal Appeals. The terms and conditions of the settlement, as per order dated 9.6.2023, are reproduced as under: “1. Parties have agreed for an amount of Rs. 50,00,000/- (Fifty lac) towards full and final settlement of claim of the bank covered by these complaints/ appeals/ revisions referred to above. 2. Out of this amount accused has paid an amount of Rs.4,00,000/- in cash to complainant through Shri Harish Sharma today in the court and which shall be adjusted against the aforesaid amount of Rs. 50,00,000/-. 3. The amount deposited by the appellant- accused with the learned trial court pursuant to the order of this court passed under section 389 of Cr.P.C. shall be payable and got released by the bank in all the aforesaid complaints by moving appropriate applications and that amount shall also be adjusted against amount of Rs. 50,00,000/- aforesaid and accused/ appellant shall have no objection in case this amount is got released by the of such bank from the court of Ld. Judicial Magistrate First Class, Kandaghat without serving notice application to the accused/appellant. 4. The appellant-accused shall pay Rs. 20.00.000/- of the remaining amount to the complainant - Bank before 30th September,2023. 5. The remaining amount after adjusting aforesaid Rs. 20,00,000/- 9 2025:HHC:23186 shall be payable by him on or before 31 October, 2023. 6. Once appellant- accused pays the complete payment of aforesaid amount of Rs. 50,00,000/-as agreed to the complainant- Bank, the complainant shall withdraw its complaints which it has filed before the Ld. Judicial Magistrate First Class Kandaghat and also other proceedings pending before the Ld. Arbitrator. 7. In case of default of payment of amount as agreed, the appeals preferred by the accused would be deemed to have been dismissed / withdrawn.” 20. Order dated 9.6.2023 was passed on the basis of statements of Mr. Harish Sharma, Senior Manager of Jogindra Central Co-operative Bank, Solan, as well as, petitioner Lokeshwar Dutt Sharma. Thereafter, vide application, Annexure P-4, the petitioner has sought extension of time to deposit the remaining amount of Rs. 16,86,010/-, as per settlement, dated 9.6.2023. It has been prayed in the said application that 9 months’ time may kindly be extended to deposit the remaining amount of Rs. 16,86,010/-. The said application has been contested by the respondent-Bank, admitting the factum of the settlement. 21. It is the specific stand of the respondent-Bank that petitioner has deposited a sum of Rs. 34,55,292/-, till 19.1.2024, out of the settled amount of Rs. 50,00,000/-. 22. The said application has been considered and rejected by the learned Appellate Court, vide order dated 10 2025:HHC:23186 20.4.2024, mainly on the ground that as per the default clause of the settlement, the failure of the petitioner to deposit the said amount would result into dismissal of his appeal. As such, according to the learned Appellate Court, order dated 9.6.2023, seeking extension of time, amounts to reviewing the order. 23. In this background, the material question, which arises for determination, before this Court is, with regard to the fact as to whether the time can be extended, enabling the petitioner to deposit the remaining amount of settlement, of Rs. 16,86,010/-. 24. It is the case of the petitioner that after filing the application for extension of time, he has deposited a sum of Rs. 8,50,000/- and thus, according to him, he has deposited a sum of Rs. 41,05,292/-. To substantiate his stand, the statement of the account has also been annexed with the application, whereas, respondent-Bank has taken the stand by claiming an amount of Rs. 16,06,089/-. 25. This Court cannot decide this dispute. However, considering the rival stands, as taken by the parties, this Court is of the view that the petitioner is able to make out a case, in his favour, for extending the time to comply with 11 2025:HHC:23186 the terms and conditions of the agreement, incorporated in order dated 9.6.2023, as, in this case, it cannot be said that the petitioner has not made efforts to honour his solemn undertaking to deposit the said amount, as according to the reply filed to the application, for extension of time, Annexure P-5, the petitioner had paid a sum of Rs. 34,55,292/-, as on 1.3.2024, when the reply was filed. The petitioner has also given the details, with regard to deposit of the amount, after the said date. 26. In such situation, in the considered opinion of this Court, ends of justice would meet, if the petitioner is permitted to deposit the said amount, alongwith a sum of Rs. 4,00,000/- additional amount, for delayed payment, within a period of two months, from today. 27. It is further clarified that the amount, if any, paid by the petitioner, after 1.3.2024, in the loan account, towards the settled amount, be also added in the total payment, made by the petitioner, as per the settlement. 28. It is further clarified that in case of failure to deposit the amount, as per this order, the present petition shall be deemed to have been dismissed, and in that 12 2025:HHC:23186 eventuality, order dated 20.4.2024, passed by the learned Appellate Court, would revive automatically. 29. With these observations, the present petition is disposed of. 30. The pending application(s), if any, are also disposed of. 31. Record be sent down. (Virender Singh) Judge July 17, 2025 Kalpana