Dismissed¶¶30

Duneshwari Devi v. the Kangra Central Co-Op Bank Ltd.

Himachal Pradesh HC5 Jun 2025CRMMO/395/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Himachal Pradesh High Court, Shimla — Cr. MMO No. 395 of 2025, decided 05.06.2025, Rakesh Kainthla J. Keywords: Section 138 NI Act conviction and appeal; suspension of sentence conditional on 20% compensation deposit; Section 148 NI Act time limit mandatory; 90-day outer cap on extension; Section 482 Cr.P.C. / Section 528 BNSS inherent jurisdiction cannot override statutory bar; Surinder Singh v. Dharam Singh, Cr.MMO No. 1179 of 2023, followed; extension of time refused; petition dismissed.

What did the court decide?

The time prescribed in Section 148 (NI Act) is mandatory and the Court has no jurisdiction to extend the time prescribed under the Act beyond 90 days; inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. (Section 528 BNSS) cannot be exercised to defeat the provision of law. ¶¶7

Duneshwari Devi Vs the Kangra Central Co-Op Bank… — Cheque Dishonour | Himachal Pradesh HC (2025)

¶1

2025:HHC:17746

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA

¶3

Cr. MMO No. 395 of 2025 Reserved on: 16.05.2025 Date of Decision: 05.06.2025.

¶4

Duneshwari Devi ...Petitioner

¶5

Versus

¶6

The Kangra Central Co-operative Bank Ltd.

¶7

...Respondent

¶8

Coram

¶9

Hon’ble Mr Justice Rakesh Kainthla , Judge. Whether approved for reporting?¹ No.

¶10

For the Petitioner	: Mr. Naveen Advocate.	K. Bhardwaj,
For the Respondent	: Mr. S.S. Ratho	re, Advocate.

¶11

Rakesh Kainthla, Judge

¶12

The petitioner has filed the present petition for setting aside the order dated 27.3.2025, passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Kullu. It has been asserted that the petitioner was convicted by the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kullu, for the commission of an offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, and he was sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for one and a half years and to

¶13

Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes.

2025:HHC:17746

pay a compensation of ₹6.00 lacs to the complainant. He filed an appeal along with an application seeking the suspension of the sentence awarded by the learned Trial Court. Learned Sessions Judge, Kullu ordered the suspension of sentence imposed by the learned Trial Court, subject to deposit of 20% of the compensation amount within two months vide order dated 12.12.2024. However, the amount was not deposited, and an application for extension of time was filed, which was allowed, and the time to deposit 20% of the compensation amount was extended till 20.3.2025. Again, the amount was not deposited, and an application for extension of time was filed, which was dismissed by the learned Sessions Judge vide order dated 27.3.2025 after holding that the Court can extend the time to deposit the compensation for 90 days. The period of 90 days had expired, and the learned Appellate Court had no jurisdiction to extend the time.

¶18

Being aggrieved by the order passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Kullu, the petitioner has filed the present petition asserting that the order passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Kullu, is against the law and facts. The petitioner has arranged the money, and she is willing to deposit the amount.

¶19

¶20

2025:HHC:17746

¶21

She would abide by the terms and conditions which the Court may impose. The arrest of the petitioner would cause harm to her reputation. Therefore, it was prayed that the present petition be allowed and the time be granted to deposit the compensation amount and furnish the bail bonds.

¶22

I have heard Mr. Naveen Kumar Bhardwaj, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. S.S. Rathore, learned counsel for the respondent.

¶23

Mr. Naveen Kumar Bhardwaj, learned counsel for the petitioner, submitted that the petitioner/accused could not deposit the composition amount within the time granted by the learned Appellate Court. Now she has arranged the money and will deposit it within the time granted by the Court. Therefore, he prayed that the present petition be allowed and the order passed by the learned Appellate Court be set aside.

¶24

Mr. S.S. Rathore, learned counsel for the respondent, submitted that the time to deposit the composition amount can only be extended for 90 days and not beyond that. There is no infirmity in the order passed by the learned Sessions Judge. Hence, he prayed that the present petition be dismissed.

¶25

¶26

2025:HHC:17746

¶27

I have given considerable thought to the submissions made at the bar and have gone through the records carefully.

¶28

It was held by this Court in Surinder Singh v. Dharam Singh and another, Cr.MMO No. 1179 of 2023, decided on 14.12.2023, that the time prescribed in Section 148 is mandatory and the Court does not have the jurisdiction to extend the time prescribed under the Act beyond 90 days. The jurisdiction under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. (corresponding to Section 528 of Bharatiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita) cannot be exercised to defeat the provision of law, and this Court does not have the jurisdiction to extend the time beyond 90 days by taking recourse to Section 482 of Cr.P.C. (Section 528 of BNSS).

¶29

Admittedly, the time was granted by learned Sessions Judge, Kullu on 12.12.2024, and 90 days expired on 12.3.2025. Therefore, the learned Sessions Judge, Kullu, has no jurisdiction to extend the time on 27.3.2025, and there is no infirmity in the order passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Kullu, dismissing the application.

¶30