Ravin Sharma Vs Surinder Pal Sharma and Another — Cheque Dishonour | Himachal Pradesh HC (2026)

Ravin Sharma Vs Surinder Pal Sharma and Another — Cheque Dishonour | Himachal Pradesh HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Direction to the petitioner to deposit 20% of the compensation amount within two days, as undertaken by learned vice counsel; in case of failure, the learned Court below shall proceed to pass appropriate order.

Issue for consideration

Whether the order dated 20.03.2026 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Una, dismissing the petitioner's application seeking extension of time for depositing 20% of the compensation amount and furnishing bail bonds, warrants interference by this Court.

Court's answer

No illegality or infirmity was found in the impugned order dated 20.03.2026 of the learned Sessions Judge, Una; accordingly, it does not warrant interference.

Ratio / Principle

Without going into the correctness of the order, the petition was disposed of with a direction to the petitioner to deposit 20% of the compensation amount within two days, as undertaken by the learned vice counsel for the petitioner; in case of failure to deposit, the learned Court below shall proceed to pass appropriate order.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA (Sandeep Sharma, Judge, oral) — Cr.MMO No.308 of 2026, decided 09.04.2026. Ravin Sharma, an accused in proceedings under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, challenged the order dated 20.03.2026 of the learned Sessions Judge, Una, dismissing his application seeking extension of time for depositing 20% of the compensation amount and furnishing the necessary bail bonds in terms of this Court's order dated 20.11.2025 in Cr.M.A. No. 837 of 2025 (Ravin Sharma vs. Surinder Pal Sharma). Perusing the petition and annexed documents vis-a-vis the reasoning in the impugned order, the Court found no illegality or infirmity warranting interference; however, taking note that the petitioner was ready and willing to deposit 20% of the compensation amount within two days, the Court, without going into the correctness of the order, disposed of the petition with a direction to deposit 20% of the compensation amount within two days, as undertaken by learned vice counsel, failing which the learned Court below shall proceed to pass appropriate order.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA

Cr.MMO No.308 of 2026 Date of Decision: 09.04.2026

_______________________________________________________ Ravin Sharma

…….Petitioner

Versus

Shri Surinder Pal Sharma & Anr. … Res pondents

Coram:

Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?¹

For the Petitioner: Ms. Samriti Sharma, Advocate vice Mr. Sandeep K. Pandey, Advocate.

For the Respondents : Mr. Rajan Kahol & Mr. Vishal Panwar, Additional Advocates General with Mr. Ravi Chauhan & Mr. Anish Banshtu, Deputy Advocates General, for respondent No.2.

_______________________________________________________ Sandeep Sharma, Judge (oral):

Petitioner herein, who is an accused in proceedings initiated under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, is aggrieved by order dated 20.03.2026 passed by learned Sessions Judge, Una, District Una, Himachal Pradesh, whereby an application seeking extension of time for depositing 20% of the compensation amount and furnishing the necessary bail bonds, in terms of order dated 20.11.2025 passed by this Court in Cr.M.A. No. 837 of 2025,

titled Ravin Sharma vs. Surinder Pal Sharma , came to be dismissed.

1 Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?

2

Having regard to the nature of prayer and order proposed to be passed in the instant proceedings, this Court sees no necessity to issue notice to the respondents. Respondent No.2 is represented by Mr. Ravi Chauhan, learned Deputy Advocate General.

Though having carefully perused averments contained in the petition as well as documents annexed therewith vis-a-vis reasoning assigned in the impugned order dated 20.03.2026, this Court finds no illegality or infirmity in the same, as such, same does not warrant interference, however, having taken note of the fact that petitioner is ready and willing to deposit 20% of the compensation amount in terms of order dated 20.11.2025 within two days, this Court, without going into the correctness of the order, deems it fit to dispose of the present petition with a direction to the petitioner to deposit 20% of the compensation amount within two days, as undertaken by the learned vice counsel for the petitioner. Needless to say, in case petitioner fails to deposit 20% of the compensation amount, learned Court below shall proceed to pass appropriate order.

(Sandeep Sharma), Judge

April 09, 2026 (sunil)