HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Criminal Miscellaneous (Petition) No. 416/2025 Shikha Shukla D/o Shri Madhusudhan Shukla, Resident of 1/450, Agrawal Caters, New Vidhyadhar Nagar, Jaipur (Raj). ----Petitioner Versus 1. State of Rajasthan, Through Public Prosecutor. 2. Mayank Kumar Sharma Son of Shri Ramvatar Sharma, Resident of 170/157, Sector Number 17, Pratap Nagar, Sanganer, Jaippur. ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Poonam Chand Bhandari For Respondent(s) : Mr. J.S. Rathore-PP JUSTICE ANOOP KUMAR DHAND Order 23/01/2025 1. The instant criminal misc. petition has been preferred against the impugned order dated 07.01.2025 passed by the Additional District and Sessions Judge, Jaipur Metropolitan-I, in Criminal Appeal No. 17/2023 by which the application filed by the petitioner seeking extension of time to deposit the 20% of the cheque amount pursuant to the order dated 18.08.2023, has been rejected. 2. Counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was convicted for the offence under Section 138 of the N.I. Act by the Court of Special Judge Metropolitan Magistrate (N.I. Act Cases) No. 13, Jaipur Metropolitan-I against which the petitioner preferred an appeal before the Court of Additional District and Sessions Judge No. 7, Jaipur Metropolitan-I, wherein an interim (2 of 3) [CRLMP-416/2025] order was passed on 18.08.2023 and the petitioner was directed to deposit the 20% of the cheque amount within a period of sixty days. Counsel submits that father of the petitioner died and the petitioner was pregnant, hence the aforesaid order was not complied within the above stipulated time. Counsel submits that subsequently, the demand draft of the said amount i.e. 20% of the cheque amount was prepared by the petitioner and the same was submitted along with an application seeking extension of time, however, the said application has been rejected by the Appellate Court vide order dated 07.01.2025. Counsel submits that in view of the submissions made herein-above, appropriate orders be passed. 3. Heard and considered the submissions made at Bar and perused the material available on record. 4. Considering the arguments raised by counsel for the petitioner and looking at the situation narrated by the petitioner with regard to the death of her father and her being pregnant, she could not comply with the aforesaid order passed by the Appellate Court within the above stipulated time but now the petitioner is ready and willing to comply with the aforesaid order that is why an application was submitted for extension of time along with demand draft of 20% of the cheque amount. 5. Considering the above factual aspect of the matter, the order dated 07.01.2025 passed by the Appellate Court is quashed and set aside. The Appellate Court is directed to accept the demand draft prepared by the petitioner and the same be disbursed to the complainant in terms of the order dated 18.08.2023 passed by the Court below. (3 of 3) [CRLMP-416/2025] 6. Accordingly, the criminal misc. petition stands disposed of. 7. Stay application and all pending application(s), if any, also stand disposed of. (ANOOP KUMAR DHAND),J Ashu/43