Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Chhattisgarh · body

2026 DAILYLAW 29255 (CHH)

DILIP KESHARWANI v. SATYAPRAKASH SHUKLA

CRMP/1896/2026 · 2026-07-26

body2026

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

1 CGHC010281542026 2026:CGHC:32007 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRMP No. 1896 of 2026 Dilip Kesharwani S/o Shyam Kesharwani Aged About 45 Years R/o Near Nagar Panchayat Ujjtain Boot House, Lormi, Police Station Lormi, District Mungeli Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner(s) versus Satyaprakash Shukla S/o Tilak Prasad Shukla Aged About 45 Years R/o Ward No. 4, Lormi, Tahsil And Police Station Lormi, District Mungeli Chhattisgarh ---- Respondent(s) For Petitioner : Mr. Ankur Diwan, Advocate. For Respondent : None. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice Order on Board 27.07.2026 1. This petition under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 has been filed seeking extension of time for depositing the remaining fine amount of Rs. 1,15,000/- in compliance of the order dated 15.07.2025 passed by this Court in Cr.R. No. 550/2024. 2. This Court, vide order dated 15.07.2025, while disposing of Criminal KUNAL DEWANGAN Digitally signed by KUNAL DEWANGAN 2 Revision No. 550/2024, upheld the sentence as modified by the learned appellate Court and granted the petitioner two months' time to deposit the remaining fine amount of Rs. 1,15,000/-, failing which he was directed to undergo the default sentence as imposed by the learned appellate Court. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner had already deposited a sum of Rs. 1,15,000/- out of the total fine amount of Rs. 2,30,000/- and is still ready and willing to deposit the remaining amount. It is contended that earlier the petitioner was running Ujjain Boot House at Lormi, however, the said business has permanently closed and presently he has no permanent source of income. It is further submitted that the petitioner has to maintain his wife and daughter and also bear their educational and medical expenses, due to which he could not arrange the remaining amount within the time granted by this Court. It is further submitted that though the petitioner had contacted and engaged a counsel for filing an appropriate petition seeking extension of time, the same could not be filed. It is lastly submitted that pursuant to the order dated 15.07.2025, the petitioner was arrested on 16.07.2026 and is presently in judicial custody. Therefore, it is prayed that the time for depositing the remaining fine amount be extended. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the order dated 15.07.2025 passed by this Court with due consideration. 5. From perusal of the record, it is evident that while passing the order dated 15.07.2025, this Court had consciously granted the petitioner two months' time to deposit the remaining fine amount of Rs. 1,15,000/- with a specific stipulation that in the event of failure to deposit the amount within 3 the stipulated period, he shall undergo the default sentence as modified by the learned appellate Court. Admittedly, the petitioner failed to comply with the said direction within the time granted by this Court and was thereafter arrested on 16.07.2026, pursuant to the said order. The explanation sought to be offered regarding financial hardship, closure of business and non-filing of the petition by the earlier engaged counsel cannot be accepted as sufficient cause to extend the time after the consequence contemplated under the order has already taken effect. 6. This Court, in its order dated 15.07.2025, had categorically held that in case of failure to deposit the remaining fine amount within the stipulated period, the petitioner shall undergo the default sentence as modified by the learned appellate Court. The condition was clear, unequivocal and self-operative. Once the petitioner failed to comply with the direction and has already been taken into custody in execution of the said order, the relief sought in the present petition cannot be granted. 7. In view of the foregoing discussion, this Court finds no merit in the present petition. Accordingly, the present Cr.M.P. stands dismissed. 8. The Registry is directed to send a certified copy of this order to the concerned trial Court for necessary information and compliance. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Kunal