IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA

Criminal Revision No. 83 of 2024 .

Decided on: 06.01.2026 P

________________________________________________

Ashwani Kumar ....Petitioner

Versus

Hi-Tech Satluj Motor Pvt. Ltd. ….Respondent

Coram

The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sushil Kukreja, Judge.

Whether approved for

reporting?o1

For the petitioner: Mr. Dheeraj K. Vashisht,

Advocate.

For the respondent: Mr. Vinod Chauhan, Advocate,

with Ms. Aanchal Singh,

Advocate.

________________________________________________

Sushil Kukrejao, Judge (oral)

The instant petition has been filed by the

petitioner-accused under Section 397 read with Section 401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.) against order

dated 22.11.2023, passed by learned Sessions Judge,

Hamirpur, H.P. in Cr. Misc. Application No. 188 of 2023,

whereby the learned Sessions Judge, Hamirpur, H.P., had dismissed in default the application filed by the petitioner- accused under Section 5 of the Act seeking condonation of delay in filing appeal against judgment of conviction and order of sentence, dated 27.12.2022, passed by learned

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

Judicial Magistrate First Class, Court No. III, Hamirpur, H.P., in Complaint No. 27 of 2016.

2. The brief facts, giving rise to the present petition, can succinctly be summarized as under:

2(a). On 27.12.2014 accused-Ashwani Kumar purchased a Nano car from the complainant-company and he promised to clear the balance amount of Rs.56,837/-, but the accused failed to do so. The complainant-company, through its authorized representative, requested the accused to pay the aforesaid amount, but the accused issued cheque No. 696914, dated 21.12.2015, amounting to Rs.56,837/-. However, the aforesaid cheque, on being presented for encashment by the complainant-company at its bank, i.e., PNB, Bhota, it was dishonoured with remarks “funds insufficient”. Thereafter, the complainant-company on

13.01.2016 issued a demand notice to the petitioner-

accused, but he failed to liquidate his financial liability towards the complainant-company within the stipulated time. Resultantly, the complainant-company filed a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (for short “the Act”) before the learned Trial Court.

3. The learned Trial Court after conclusion of the trial convicted the accused under Section 138 of the Act and sentenced him to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of two months and to pay fine of Rs.70,000/- to the complainant-company.

4. Being dissatisfied, the accused/petitioner/convict preferred an appeal before the learned Lower Appellate Court, which was barred by limitation. Therefore, the petitioner-accused also filed an application under Section 5 of the Indian Limitation Act seeking condonation of delay in filing the appeal, but the said application was dismissed in default by the learned Lower Appellate Court, vide order dated 22.11.2023. Hence, the instant petition has been filed by the petitioner-accused under Section 397 read with Section 401 of Cr.P.C. against order 22.11.2023 with a prayer to quash and set-aside the aforesaid order and to restore and hear the appeal on merits.

5. During the pendency of the instant petition, an application (Cr.MP No. 5333 of 2025) under Section 528 of the Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short “BNSS”) read with Section 147 of the Act has been filed by the petitioner-accused, seeking permission of this Court to compound the offence by setting-aside the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 2712.2022, passed by learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Court No. III, Hamirpur, H.P., in Complaint No. 27 of 2016.

6. Today, petitioner/accused Ashwani Kumar and Ms. Archna, authorized representative of respondent-Hi- Tech Satluj Motor Pvt. Ltd., are present before this Court and their statements have been recorded and separately placed on the file.

7. In his statement, petitioner/accused Ashwani Kumar stated that on the complaint had