2025:HHC:28737 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr. MMO No. 782 of 2025 Reserved on: 14.08.2025 Date of Decision: 26.08.2025 Balbir Singh ...Petitioner Versus Sandeep Sharma & another ...Respondents Coram Hon’ble Mr Justice Rakesh Kainthla, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 No. For the petitioner : Mr. Prakash Sharma, Advocate. For the Respondent/State : Mr Jitender K. Sharma, Additional Advocate General, for the respondent/State. Rakesh Kainthla, Judge The petitioner has filed the present petition under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, for seeking extension of the time granted by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Paonta Sahib, District Sirmour, H.P. (learned Appellate Court). It has been asserted that the petitioner/accused was convicted and sentenced by the learned 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes. 2 2025:HHC:28737 Judicial Magistrate First Class, Shillai. District Sirmour, H.P. He filed an appeal and an application for suspension of sentence awarded by the learned Trial Court. The learned Appellate Court ordered the suspension of the sentence, subject to deposit of 20% of the compensation amount within 30 days and furnishing of personal bond in the sum of ₹20,000/- with one solvent surety. The petitioner could not comply with the order passed by the learned Appellate Court due to financial difficulties. The matter was settled with the complainant. The petitioner is apprehensive that he would be arrested for non-compliance with the order passed by the learned Appellate Court. The petitioner has deposited 20% of the compensation amount on 24.07.2025, and he is ready to furnish the personal and surety bonds to the satisfaction of the learned Trial Court. Hence, it was prayed that the present petition be allowed and time to comply with the order dated 18.01.2025 passed by learned Appellate Court be extended. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner could not comply with the order passed by the learned Appellate court due to financial difficulties. He has deposited 20% of the compensation amount before the learned Trial Court 3 2025:HHC:28737 on 24.07.2025. He has settled the matter with the complainant. Hence, he prayed that the present petition be allowed and time to comply with the order dated 18.01.2025 be extended. 3. I have given considerable thought to his submissions made at the bar and have gone through the record carefully. 4. This Court held in Surinder Singh v. Dharam Singh and another, Cr.MMO No. 1179 of 2023, decided on 14.12.2023, that the period of 90 days prescribed for the deposit of the compensation amount under Section 148(2) of the NI Act is mandatory and cannot be extended by taking recourse to the inherent jurisdiction of the Court. The period of 90 days granted by the learned Additional Sessions Judge has already expired, and it is impermissible to extend the same by taking recourse to the inherent jurisdiction of the Court. 5. The petition is silent as to why the petitioner had not approached the learned Appellate Court for the extension of time granted by it. The petitioner has an alternative remedy of approaching the learned Appellate Court, which had originally granted the time. The petitioner filed the present petition under Section 528 of BNSS, whose jurisdiction is to be exercised 4 2025:HHC:28737 sparingly when there is no alternate remedy available to a person. Since the petitioner has a remedy of approaching the learned Appellate Court for the extension of the time granted by it, therefore, there is no reason for this Court to exercise its inherent jurisdiction. 6. In view of the above, the present petition fails and the same is dismissed. 7. The observations made hereinbefore shall remain confined to the disposal of the petition and will have no bearing, whatsoever, on the merits of the case. 8. The present petition stands disposed of, and so are the pending miscellaneous applications, if any. (Rakesh Kainthla) Judge 26th August 2025 (ravinder)