Naveen Sharma Vs Krishan Lal Bhaluni and Another — Cheque Dishonour | Himachal Pradesh HC (2026)

Naveen Sharma Vs Krishan Lal Bhaluni and Another — Cheque Dishonour | Himachal Pradesh HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Modification of the Appellate Court's order dated 2.5.2026: the petitioner/accused shall deposit 10% (instead of 20%) of the compensation amount within a period of two weeks; failing which the order dated 2.5.2026 shall revive automatically and no more opportunity for extension of time shall be granted. Petition disposed of in these terms, along with all pending applications.

Issue for consideration

Whether the Appellate Court's order dated 2.5.2026, which accompanied suspension of the substantive sentence by directing the petitioner/accused to deposit 20% of the compensation amount within one month, should be modified to require deposit of only 10% of the compensation amount, in view of the petitioner-accused's financial crunch.

Court's answer

No illegality was committed by the learned Appellate Court in directing the petitioner/accused to deposit some amount out of the total compensation amount during the pendency of the appeal.

Ratio / Principle

Without going into the merits of the case, and having regard to the petitioner's poor financial condition, this Court deemed it fit to modify the order dated 2.5.2026 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Kinnaur at Rampur, to the extent that instead of depositing 20% of the amount, the petitioner shall deposit 10% of the amount, within a period of two weeks.

Key takeaways

If the petitioner fails to deposit the 10% amount within the stipulated two weeks, the order dated 2.5.2026 shall revive automatically, and no further opportunity for extension of time shall be granted.ratio¶16
Having regard to the nature of the order proposed, the Court saw no necessity to issue notice to respondent No.1, the matter being disposable on the basis of pleadings and material available on record; respondent-State, through its Additional Advocate General, fairly conceded that appropriate orders could be passed.obiter¶12

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Negotiable Instruments Act, S. 138 — Suspension of sentence — Conditional deposit of compensation — Modification of interim appellate order. Petitioner-accused in proceedings under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, unable on grounds of financial crunch to meet a deposit condition, sought modification of the order dated 2.5.2026 of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Kinnaur at Rampur (Appellate Court) in 'Naveen Sharma v. Krishan Lal Bhaluni', whereby the trial Court's substantive sentence had been suspended subject to deposit of 20% of the compensation amount within one month. Holding that no illegality attended the Appellate Court's conditional-deposit direction but moved by the petitioner's poor financial condition, and expressly 'without going into the merits', this Court (Sandeep Sharma, J., orally, notice to respondent No.1 having been dispensed with) modified the order: the petitioner shall deposit 10% of the amount within a period of two weeks, failing which the order dated 2.5.2026 shall revive automatically and no further extension of time shall be granted. Petition disposed of accordingly, along with pending applications.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA

______________________________	Cr.MMO No.546 of 2026 Date of Decision: 1.6.2026 ___________________________________________
Naveen Sharma	……...Petitioner
	Versus
Sh. Krishan Lal and Anr	. …....Respondents
Coram

Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge.

Whether approved for reporting?

__________________________________________________________________________ For the Petitioner: Mr. Sahil Sharma, Proxy Counsel. For the Respondents: Mr. Rajan Kahol & Mr. Vishal Panwar, Additional Advocates General, with Mr. Ravi Chauhan and Mr. Anish Banshtu, Deputy Advocates General, for State. _________________________________________________________________________________

Sandeep Sharma, J. (Oral)

Petitioner-accused, who is accused in proceedings initiated under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, is aggrieved of order dated 2.5.2026 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Kinnaur at Rampur (learned Appellate Court), in case titled Naveen Sharma v. Krishan Lal Bhaluni , whereby afore court while suspending the substantive sentence imposed by the learned trial Court, directed the petitioner/ accused to deposit 20% of the compensation amount within a period of one month.

2. Since on account of financial crunch, petitioner/accused has

not been able to comply with aforesaid order, as a result of which, sword of

2

execution of judgment of conviction and sentence recorded by the learned trial Court is hanging on his head, he has approached this Court in the instant proceedings, praying therein to modify order dated 2.5.2026, passed by the court of learned Appellate Court, by permitting the petitioner herein to deposit 10% of the amount of compensation instead of 20%.

3. Having regard to the nature of order proposed to be passed, this Court sees no necessity to issue notice to respondent No.1, who in the event of notice being issued, would be unnecessarily compelled to engage a lawyer, which can be otherwise disposed of on the basis of pleadings and material available on record.

4. Respondent-State is represented by Mr. Rajan Kahol, learned Additional Advocate General, who fairly states that this Court keeping in view the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case may pass appropriate orders.

5. Though no illegality can be said to have been committed by the learned Appellate court while directing the petitioner/accused to deposit some amount out of total compensation amount during the pendency of the appeal, but having regard to the poor financial condition of the petitioner, this court without going into the merits of the case, deems it fit to modify the order dated 2.5.2026, passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Kinnaur at Rampur, in case detailed herein above, to the extent that he instead of depositing 20% of the amount in terms of afore order, shall deposit 10% of the amount, within a period of two weeks, failing which

3

order dated 2.5.2026, shall revive automatically and no more opportunity for extension of time shall be granted by the court. Ordered accordingly. The petition stands disposed of in the aforesaid terms, along with all pending applications.

June 1, 2026 (Sandeep Sharma), Manjit Judge