IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr.MMO No.249 of 2026 Date of Decision: 01.04.2026 _______________________________________________________ Smt. Bhagu Devi @ Anita …….Petitioner Versus Sh. Inder Singh … Respondent _______________________________________________________ Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? 1 For the Petitioner : Mr. Jagat Pal, Advocate. For the Respondents: Nemo. _______________________________________________________ Sandeep Sharma, Judge(oral): Petitioner herein, who is an accused in the proceedings initiated against him under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, is aggrieved of order dated 15.01.2026 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge-I, Shimla, whereby prayer made on behalf of the petitioner/accused for extension of time to comply with the order dated 01.11.2025, passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, thereby suspending the substantive sentence imposed by learned trial Court, while holding petitioner-accused guilty of his having committed offence punishable under Section 138 of the Act, subject to deposit of 25% of the compensation amount and furnishing of personal and surety bond to the tune of Rs. 1,00,000/- within a period of 30 days, has been rejected. 1Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 2. Having regard to the nature of the prayer and order proposed to be passed, this Court sees no necessity to issue notice to the respondent and as such, same is dispensed with. 3. Precisely, the grouse of the petitioner, as has been highlighted in the petition and further canvassed by learned counsel for the petitioner, is that though by way of an application for extension of time, petitioner-accused had explained the reasons/circumstances for his not having deposited the amount in terms of order dated 01.11.2025 well within time, but yet court below taking hyper technical view, proceeded to reject the application, as a result of thereof, petitioner is under threat of arrest in terms of judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by learned trial court. 4. Though, having carefully perused order laid challenge in the instant proceedings, this Court sees no illegality or infirmity in the same, but having taken note of the fact that petitioner-accused is ready and willing to comply with order dated 01.11.2025 within a period of two weeks, this Court is of the view that no prejudice, if any, shall be caused to either of the parties in case further two weeks’ time is granted to the petitioner-accused to comply with the ordered dated 01.11.2025. To the contrary, in case afore prayer made on behalf of the petitioner is not accepted, great prejudice shall be caused to him. 5. Consequently, in view of the above, order dated 15.01.2026 inasmuch as prayer made on behalf of the petitioner for 3 extension of time to comply with order dated 0.11.2025 has been declined, is quashed and set-aside with a direction to the petitioner- accused to deposit the amount in terms of order dated 01.11.2025 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge-1, Shimla, within a period of two weeks, failing which, order dated 15.01.2026 shall automatically revive and no more opportunity shall be granted to the petitioner-accused to do the needful. In the aforesaid terms, the present petition is disposed of alongwith pending applications, if any. 6. (Sandeep Sharma), Judge April 01, 2026 (shankar)