Sandhya Devi vs Rajan Chopra

Rakesh Kainthla, J

The petitioner has filed the present petition against the order dated 13.08.2025, passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Kullu, District Kullu, in Cr. MP No.265 of 2025, titled Sandhya Devi Vs. Rajan Chopra. It has been asserted that the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Mandi convicted the petitioner of the commission of an offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1888 (NI Act) and sentenced him to undergo simple imprisonment for six months and to pay a compensation amount of ₹1,25,000/- for mental agony i.e. ₹1,00,000/- cheque amount and ₹25,000/- vide judgment/order dated 29.08.2024 in Complaint No. 131/2021. The petitioner has filed an appeal, which was registered as Cr. Appeal No. 213 of 2024, and is pending before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Kullu, District Kullu. It was taken up on 15.10.2024, and the learned Appellate C urt suspended the sentence imposed upon the pe i ioner, subject to his furnishing personal bond in the sum of ₹50,000/- with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned Trial Court and depositing 20% f the c mpensation amount within 60 days. This order could not be complied with due to financial difficulties. T e petitioner filed an application for extension of time, which was allowed, and the time to comply with the order was extended on 10.01.2025. The petitioner could not comply with the order dated 10.01.2025, and he filed another application for extension of time, which was dismissed on the ground that it was impermissible to extend the time beyond 90 days under Section 148 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (NI Act). The petitioner is facing financial difficulties, and she could not arrange the money. She is suffering from various ailments and requires medical treatment. She intends to comply with the order dated 15.10.2024; therefore, it was prayed that the present petition be allowed and the time to comply with the order be extended.

Mr Narender Singh Thakur, learned counsel for the petitioner, submitted that the learned Appellate Court erred in not extending the time granted by it. The petitioner had various ailments, and she had sought medical treatment for them. She was unable to comply with the o der because of her financial difficulties; therefore, he prayed that the present petition be allowed and the time to c mply with the order be extended. He relied upon the judgment of Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in Cr. MMO No. 705 of 2023, titled Narayan Singh Vs. Mohinder Singh decided on 07.07.2023, in support of his submission.

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

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 90 days’ time prescribed in Section 148 is mandatory and the Court does not have the jurisdiction to extend it beyond 90 days by taking recourse to Section 482 of Cr.P.C. (corresponding to Section 528 of Bharatiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita) as this jurisdiction cannot be exercised to defeat the provision of law.

Original order was passed on 15.10.2024 and 90 days expired on 14.01.2025. Therefore, the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Kullu, has no jurisdicti n to extend the time on 13.08.2025, and there is no infi mi y in the order passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Kullu, dismissing the application.

In Narayan Singh’s Case (supra), the Co-ordinate Bench had extended the period without adverting to the merits of t e case or Section 148 of the NI Act. This Court had referred the question to the Larger Bench in Dharmender Singh v Pradeep Kumar CrMMO no 1278 of 2023 decided on 12.01.2024, and the Hon’ble Division Bench held that the exercise of discretion by a Co-ordinate Bench without deciding the question of law was not an inconsistent decision requiring the resolution by the Larger Bench; therefore, no reliance can be placed upon the cited judgment.

In view of the above, the present petition fails, and it is dismissed.

The observations made heretofore shall remain confined to the disposal of the present petition and will have no bearing, whatsoever, on the merits of the case.