High Court judge examined an application under Section 482 CrPC challenging an order rejecting a request for time to deposit money. The court kept the impugned order in abeyance until 22.9.2017, allowing deposit of funds to prevent revival.
Impugned order kept in abeyance until 22.9.2017; petition disposed of on these terms.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA.
Cr.MMO No. 366 of 2017 Decided on: 22.9.2017
| Dinesh Kumar | Versus | …Petitioner. |
|---|---|---|
| Suresh Kumar _________________ |
__________________ | …Respondent. ______________________ |
Coram:
Hon’ble Mr. Justice Tarlok Singh Chauhan, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the Petitioner : Mr. G. R. Palsra, Advocate. For the respondent : None. _________________________________________________________
Justice Tarlok Singh Chauhan, Judge (oral):
By medium of this petition, under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the petitioner appears to be aggrieved by the order dated 13.9.2017 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge-I, Mandi, District Mandi, H.P. in Cr.M.A. No. 134 of 2017 (for short impugned order) whereby his application for extension of time to deposit the amount upto 22.9.2017 has been rejected.
1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? yes
2
2. Having perused the order, I find the same
to be rather harsh. However, at the same time, since the petitioner has only sought time to deposit the amount upto today i.e. 22.9.2017, therefore the impugned order dated 13.9.2017 is kept in abeyance upto 22.9.2017 and in the event of non-deposit of the amount, then obviously the same shall automatically revive.
terms, so also the pending application.
Copy dasti.
(Tarlok Singh Chauhan), Judge.
GR
22.9.2017
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the impugned order rejecting the petitioner's application for extension of time to deposit the amount should be quashed or kept in abeyance.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Dinesh Kumar
Suresh Kumar
Tarlok Singh Chauhan
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
