M/S M.S TRADERS AND ANOTHER v. M/S KALTA AND COMPANY AND ANOTHER
CRMMO/681/2025 · 2026-08-13
Sandeep Sharma
body2025
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2025 DAILYLAW 4298 (HP) · dailylaw.ai ]
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2025 DAILYLAW 4298 (HP) · dailylaw.ai ]
Judgment text
Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA
Cr.MMO No. 681 of 2025
Date of Decision:13.08.2026 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- M/s M.S. Traders & another ...Petitioners
Versus
M/s Kalta & Company & another …Respondents -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Coram: The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge.
Whether approved for reporting?1 . ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- For the Petitioners: Mr. Pranshul Sharma, Advocate.
For the Respondents: Mr. Vipin Pandit, Advocate ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Sandeep Sharma, J. (Oral)
Petitioner herein, who is accused in proceedings initiated against him under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, is aggrieved of order dated 22.05.2025, whereby an application for extension of time to deposit 20% of the compensation amount, in terms of order dated 18.11.2024 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-1, Solan, District Solan, Himachal Pradesh, came to be dismissed.
2.
Petitioner herein, being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 30.08.2024/18.10.2024 passed by the learned trial Court, filed appeal in the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge-1, Solan, District Solan, along with application for suspension of sentence. Afore application filed by the petitioner came to be allowed vide
1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?
2
order dated 18.11.2024, subject to his depositing 20% of the compensation amount, but fact remains that despite repeated opportunities, afore order never came to be complied with. Prior to filing the application, which is subject matter of the case, petitioner- accused had also filed application for extension of time to comply with the order dated 18.11.2024. Though afore application was allowed vide order dated 18.12.2024 and time was extended for a period of 30 days, but yet petitioner failed to comply with the order dated 18.11.2024 and thereafter, petitioner filed another application for further extension of time, which came to be allowed vide order dated 18.01.2025 and time was extended for a period of 30 days, but yet petitioner failed to comply the order dated 18.11.2024 and thereafter, filed another application for further extension of time, which came to be rejected by learned Additional Sessions Judge-I, Solan, District Solan, vide order dated 22.05.2025, as he had no power to extend the time beyond 90 days. In afore background, petitioner has approached this Court in the instant proceedings filed under Section 528 of Bharatiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, praying therein to set aside aforesaid
order dated 22.05.2025 and grant one opportunity to deposit the amount in terms of order dated 18.11.2024.
3.
Though having carefully perused averments contained in the petition, vis-a-vis reasoning assigned in the order dated 22.05.2025, this Court sees no illegality and infirmity in the same,
3 however, having taken note of statement made by learned counsel representing the petitioner that in any eventuality, 20% of the compensation amount, in terms of order dated 18.11.2024, shall be deposited within a period of 20 days, this Court, without going into the merits of the case, deems it fit to dispose of the present petition with the direction to petitioner to deposit 20% of the compensation amount in terms of order dated 18.11.2024 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judg-1 Solan, District Solan, Himachal Pradesh, within a period of 20 days, failing which no more opportunity shall be granted by the Court below for depositing 20% of the compensation amount as well as furnishing bail bonds and thereafter, respondent would be at liberty to get the judgment of learned trial Court executed in accordance with law. Ordered accordingly. Interim order, if any, is vacated.
4.
The parties through their respective counsel are
directed to appear before the Court below on 11.09.2026, enabling Court below to proceed further with the matter.
The present petition is disposed in the above terms, so also the pending miscellaneous application(s), if any.
(Sandeep Sharma)
Judge August 13,2026 (shankar)