IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr.MMO No. 621 of 2026 Date of Decision: 19.6.2026 _____________________________________________________________________ Gulshan Kumar ……...Petitioner Versus Hi Tech Satluj Motors Pvt. Ltd. …....Respondents Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? For the Petitioner: Mr. Vikrant Chandel, Advocate. For the Respondents: Nemo. ___________________________________________________________________________ Sandeep Sharma, J. (Oral) Petitioner accused, who is accused in proceedings initiated under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, is aggrieved of order dated 19.5.2026, passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Hamirpur, whereby court below though accepted the request of the petitioner for extension of time to deposit 40% of the amount in terms of order dated 2.2.2026, but refused to reduce the amount from 40% to 20%. 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 the respondent, who otherwise in the event of notice being issued would be unnecessarily burdened to engage a lawyer to defend him in the 2 case, which can only be disposed of on the basis of material already available on record. 3. Having heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused material available on record vis-à-vis reasoning assigned in the order impugned in the instant proceedings, this Court finds no illegality or infirmity in the same because at no point of time, prayer, if any, ever came to be made at the behest of the petitioner for modification of order dated 2.2.2026, rather petitioner himself by way of application filed under Section 430 (1) of BNSS, prayed for extension of time to comply with order dated 2.2.2026. Learned court below taking note of the explanation rendered in the application, proceeded to extend the time to deposit of 40% of the amount. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner though attempted to argue that by way of afore application, factum with regard to financial crunch suffered by the petitioner, was brought to the notice of the court, but such fact, if any, could not have been reason for the learned trial Court to modify the order dated 2.2.2026, rather in that situation he was required to aver in the application that he is unable to deposit 40% of the amount and as such, order may be modified to the extent that he be directed to deposit 20% of the compensation amount. Since no such prayer ever came to be made by the petitioner, no illegality can be said to have been committed by the learned Sessions Judge while passing impugned order dated 19.5.2026. 3 5. Though this Court finds no illegality or infirmity in the impugned order for the reasons discussed herein above, but having taken note of the financial condition of the petitioner coupled with the fact that he is ready and willing to deposit 20% of the compensation amount within a period of one week, this Court without going into the merits of the case, deems it fit to dispose of the present petition with direction to the petitioner-accused to deposit 20% of the compensation amount within one week, failing which no more opportunity would be granted and respondent would be at liberty to get the judgment of learned trial Court executed in accordance with law. Ordered accordingly. In view of the aforesaid directions, impugned order dated 19.5.2026, is modified to the afore extent only. The present petition is allowed in the aforesaid terms. Pending application(s), if any, also stands disposed of. June 19, 2026 (Sandeep Sharma), (manjit) Judge