IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr.MMO No.548 of 2026 Date of Decision: 03.06.2026 _______________________________________________________ M/s Sidhi Vinayak Filing Station & Anr. …….Petitioners Versus Prakash Chaudhary & Anr. … Respondents _______________________________________________________ Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? 1 For the Petitioners: Mr. N.S. Chandel, Senior Advocate with Mr. Rupinder S. Minhas, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr. Rajan Kahol & Mr. Vishal Panwar, Additional Advocates General with Mr. Ravi Chauhan & Mr. Anish Banshtu, Deputy Advocates General, for respondent No.1- State. _______________________________________________________ Sandeep Sharma, Judge(oral): Petitioner herein, who is an accused in proceedings initiated against him under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, is aggrieved of order dated 05.05.2026 passed by learned Sessions Judge, Mandi, District Mandi, Himachal Pradesh in Cr.M.A No.396 of 2026, thereby suspending the substantive sentence imposed by the learned trial Court subject to petitioner depositing 20% of the compensation amount and furnishing personal bond in the sum of Rs.2,00,000/- with one surety in the like amount within one month. 1Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 2. Having regard to the nature of prayer and order proposed to be passed in the instant proceedings, this Court sees no necessity to issue notice to respondent No.1, as such, same is dispensed with. Respondent No.2 is represented by Mr. Rajan Kahol, learned Additional Advocate General, who fairly states that this Court may proceed to pass appropriate orders in the given facts and circumstances of the case. 3. Precisely, the facts of the case, as emerge from the pleadings as well as other material adduced on record by the respective parties are that respondent No.1-complainant (for short “complainant”) filed a complaint under Section 138 of the Act in the competent Court of law, alleging therein that cheque amounting to Rs.57,00,000/- issued by the petitioner-accused in favour of the respondent No.1-complainant towards discharge of his lawful liability was dishonoured on account of insufficient funds in the bank account of the petitioner-accused. Since accused failed to make the payment good within the time stipulated in the legal notice, complainant was compelled to initiate proceedings under Section 138 of the Act before the competent Court of law, which subsequently on the basis of material adduced on record by the respective parties, vide judgment/order dated 22.04.2026, held the accused guilty of having committed offence punishable under Section 138 of the Act and accordingly, convicted and sentenced him to undergo simple 3 imprisonment for a period of six months and pay compensation to the tune of Rs.1,14,00,000/- to the complainant. 4. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the aforesaid judgment of conviction and order of sentence recorded by the learned Court below, accused preferred an appeal in the court of learned Sessions Judge, Mandi, District Mandi, H.P. Learned Sessions Judge, Mandi, District Mandi, H.P. stayed the substantive sentence imposed by the learned trial Court subject to petitioner-accused depositing 20% of the amount of compensation and furnishing personal bond in the sum of Rs.2,00,000/- with one surety in the like amount within one month. Since petitioner-accused is finding it difficult to deposit the afore amount, as a result thereof, sword of execution of judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by learned Court below is hanging on his head, he has approached this Court in the instant proceedings to either waive of the condition of depositing amount or modify the order passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Mandi, District Mandi, Himachal Pradesh, to the extent that petitioner may be directed to deposit 15% of the cheque amount. 5. Having taken note of the fact that the petitioner-accused had issued cheque amounting to Rs.57,00,000/-, which ultimately came to be dishonoured on account of insufficient funds and court below, while allowing the complaint filed by the complainant under Section 138 of the Act, has doubled the amount, while awarding 4 compensation, this Court, taking note of the fact that in addition to case at hand, one similar case was also pending against the petitioner-accused, wherein similar condition had been imposed, deems it fit to dispose of the present petition by modifying order dated 05.05.2026 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Mandi, District Mandi, Himachal Pradesh, to the extent that petitioner-accused shall deposit 15% of the cheque amount instead of 20% of the amount of compensation within eight weeks from today, failing which, order dated 05.05.2026 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Mandi, District Mandi, Himachal Pradesh, would automatically revive and on account of non-compliance of the same, complainant would be at liberty to get the judgment of learned trial Court executed in accordance with law. Pending applications, if any, stand disposed of. (Sandeep Sharma), Judge June 03, 2026 (sunil)