Disposed¶21

Shalini Kumari v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Allahabad HC22 Apr 2026A482/3231/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Condonation of delay; cost imposed on condonation held unreasonable; modification of appellate order; appeal under Section 138 N.I. Act; 31 days delay; certified copies; Allahabad High Court Lucknow Bench; Application U/S 482 No. 3231 of 2026; Shalini Kumari v. State of U.P.; Brij Raj Singh, J.; April 22, 2026; cost of Rs. 20,000/- not to be realized.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order dated 16.03.2026 modified to the extent that the cost of Rs. 20,000/- will not be realized from the applicant; condonation of delay already allowed remains undisturbed. ¶21

Shalini Kumari vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home… — Cheque Dishonour | Allahabad HC (2026)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW

¶2

APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 3231 of 2026

Shalini Kumari

.....Applicant(s)

Versus

State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. And Another .....Opposite Party(s)

¶7

Counsel for Applicant(s) : Suyash Bajpai, Akhilesh Kumar Mishra Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A.

¶8

Court No. - 15

¶9

HON'BLE BRIJ RAJ SINGH, J.

¶10

Heard learned counsel for the applicant and learned A.G.A. for the State.

¶11

In view of the proposed order, requirement of issuance of notice to respondent no.2 is dispensed with.

¶12

This application has been filed with the following prayers:-

¶13

" Wherefore, it is most respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to:-

¶14

i. Set aside or suitably modify the impugned order dated 16.03.2026 passed by the Learned Additional Sessions Judge, Court No. 17, Lucknow, to the extent of imposition of cost of Rs. 20,000/-"

¶15

Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that against the order dated 03.12.2025 passed under Section 138 of N.I.Act, the applicant preferred an appeal along with application for condonation of delay as there was 31 days delay in filing the appeal. He further submits that by the impugned order, the application for condonation of delay has been allowed on the cost of Rs.20,000/-. He has also submitted that the applicant is doing some private job for her living and is struggling to meet her requirement with her earnings and she had given sufficient reason before the appellate court for not filing the appeal within time stating that

¶16

A482 No. 3231 of 2026

¶17

¶18

she had to obtain certified copies of the judgment and order which also consumed considerable time, thereafter the applicant consulted her counsel and filed the appeal immediately.

¶19

After going through the record and the statement given by the applicant, it appears that she is doing some private job for her living and to meet her basic need. As soon as she was advised to file appeal, she filed the same along with application for condonation of delay which has already been allowed.

¶20

So far as the imposition of cost of Rs.20,000 is concerned, it does not seem to be reasonable in view of the pleadings made in the application and the submission made before this Court. Accordingly, the impugned order is modified to the extent that cost of Rs.20,000/- will not be realized from the applicant.

¶21

6. The application is disposed of.

¶22

(Brij Raj Singh,J.)

¶23

April 22, 2026

¶24

Renu/-

¶25

Digitally signed by :- RENU AGARWAL High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Shalini Kumari v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shalini Kumari v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Rajan Singh vs State of U.P. Thru. Its Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. and Another

Abhinav vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Liyakat Khan vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko. and Another

Rajbali vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Vinod Mishra and Another vs State of U.P. Thru. the Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. and Another

Raja Sonkar vs State of U.P.Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Investigation Deptt. Civil Sectt. Lko. and Another