2026:UHC:929 SL. No. Date Office Notes, reports, orders or proceedings or directions and Registrar’s order with Signatures COURT’S OR JUDGE’S ORDERS C528/1651/2025 Hon’ble Alok Mahra, J. Mr. Yogesh Pant, learned counsel for the applicant through Video Conferencing. 2. Mr. K.S. Bora, learned Deputy A.G. along with Mr. Rakesh Negi, learned Brief Holder for the State. 3. Mr. V.S. Rawat, learned counsel for respondent no.2. 4. Present C-528 application has been filed by the applicant seeking quashing of the order dated 06.03.2024 passed by the learned District and Sessions Judge, Dehradun in Criminal Appeal No. 64 of 2024, to the limited extent whereby, while considering the stay application under Section 389 Cr.P.C., a condition was imposed directing the applicant to deposit 20% of the compensation amount awarded by the trial court. 5. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that respondent no. 2/complainant had filed Complaint Case No. 123 of 2015 before the learned Judicial Magistrate/1st Additional Civil Judge, Dehradun under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. It was alleged that the applicant had borrowed ₹3,00,000/- from the complainant and, in order to repay the 2026:UHC:929 said amount, issued a cheque. However, when the cheque was presented for encashment, it was dishonoured. After serving the statutory notice and on failure of the applicant to make payment within the prescribed time, the complaint was filed. The learned trial court, by judgment and order dated 06.02.2024, convicted the applicant and sentenced him to three months’ simple imprisonment. The court also directed him to pay ₹3,10,000/- as compensation to the complainant. 6. Aggrieved thereby, the applicant preferred Criminal Appeal No. 64 of 2024 before the learned District and Sessions Judge, Dehradun along with an application under Section 389 Cr.P.C. seeking suspension of sentence/stay of the judgment and order dated 06.02.2024. The learned appellate court admitted the appeal and granted suspension of sentence; however, it imposed a condition directing the applicant to deposit 20% of the compensation amount before the trial court within 60 days from the date of the order. 7. It is contended on behalf of the applicant that the learned appellate court has imposed the aforesaid condition mechanically, without assigning any cogent reasons and without considering the financial capacity of the applicant. Reliance has been placed upon the judgment of the 2026:UHC:929 Hon’ble Supreme Court in Jamboo Bhandari v. M.P. State Industrial Development Corporation Ltd., wherein it has been held that while exercising powers under Section 389 Cr.P.C., the appellate court must apply its judicial mind and consider whether the case warrants imposition of conditions, particularly when a blanket suspension of sentence is sought. It is submitted that the condition of deposit should not be imposed in a routine or mechanical manner. 8. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent no. 2 fairly submits that, in order to balance the equities, both parties have agreed that the condition of deposit may be reduced from 20% to 10% of the compensation amount. It is further submitted that the matter pertains to an offence under the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 and is pending since long; therefore, a direction may be issued for expeditious disposal of the appeal. 9. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and considering the facts and circumstances of the case, particularly the consensual submission made on behalf of both sides, this Court deems it appropriate to modify the impugned order dated 06.03.2024 to a limited extent. Accordingly, the condition directing deposit of 20% of the compensation amount is modified, and the applicant is directed to deposit 10% 2026:UHC:929 of the compensation amount awarded by the trial court within a period of 30 days from the date of production of a certified copy of this order before the concerned appellate court. 10. It is further observed that since the matter arises out of proceedings under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 and has been pending for a considerable period, the learned court below is requested to make every endeavour to decide the proceedings expeditiously, in accordance with law. 11. The C-528 application is, accordingly, disposed of in the aforesaid terms. (Alok Mahra, J.) 13.02.2026 Mamta