Himachal Pradesh High Court
Satish Kumar vs . Rajinder Kumar on 19 February, 2026
Satish Kumar vs. Rajinder Kumar
.
Cr.R No.106 of 2026
19.02.2026 Present: Mr. Mukul Sood, Advocate for the petitioner.
Cr.R No.106 of 2026
Notice be issued to the respondent, returnable by
of
the next date of hearing, on taking steps during the course of
the day.
rt List on 19.03.2026.
Cr.MP No. 566 of 2026
Notice in the aforesaid terms.
By way of present application, the
applicant/petitioner has prayed for suspension of substantive
sentence imposed upon him vide judgment of conviction dated
23.08.2019 and order of sentence dated 26.08.2019, passed by
the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Court No.II, Amb,
District Una, H.P in CIS Registration No.14/2016, titled as
“Rajinder Kumar Vs. Satish Kumar“, which was affirmed by
learned Additional Sessions Judge-I, Una, District Una, H.P., in
Cr. Appeal No.64 of 2019 titled “Satish Kumar vs. Rajinder
Kumar” on 26.09.2025, under Section 138 of the Negotiable
Instruments Act. The learned trial Court vide judgment of
conviction dated 23.08.2019 and order of sentence dated
26.08.2019, convicted and sentenced him to undergo simple
imprisonment for a period of one year and to pay fine of
Rs.4,00,000/- for the commission of an offence punishable
under Section 138 of the NI Act and in default of payment of
::: Downloaded on – 19/02/2026 20:30:23 :::CIS
fine, he shall undergo further simple imprisonment for eight
.
months.
The respondent/non-applicant had filed a complaint
under Section 138 of NI Act, in the Court of learned Judicial
Magistrate, First Class, Court No.II, Amb, District Una, H.P on
27.01.2016. It was averred in the complaint that the present
of
petitioner- applicant maintained good relations with the
respondent and asked him to pay Rs.3,00,000/- for the purpose
rt
of purchasing of tempo. In the month of June, 2013, the
respondent paid a sum of Rs.3,00,000/- to the petitioner and he
assured the respondent to return the aforesaid amount on or
before 01.09.2015. That the present petitioner-applicant issued
two cheques drawn on PNB, Daulatpur Chowk in discharge of
his legal liability and the same was dishonoured when
presented before the Bank with the remarks “Funds
Insufficient”. Therefore, the complaint was filed before the
learned Judicial Magisrate, First Class, Court No.II, Una against
the present petitioner-applicant. The learned Judicial Magistrate
vide its judgment dated 23.08.2019 convicted the applicant and
ordered that the applicant shall undergo simple imprisonment
for a period of one year and pay a fine of Rs.4,00,000/-. The
said judgment was affirmed by the learned Additional Sessions
Judge-I, Una, District Una, H.P., in Cr. Appeal No.64 of 2019
titled “Satish Kumar vs. Rajinder Kumar” on 26.09.2025.
Perusal of the revision shows that the applicant has
raised arguable points and the disposal of the same shall take
some time. Conseqeuntly, during the pendency of the present
petition, the judgment of conviction and order of sentence as
::: Downloaded on – 19/02/2026 20:30:23 :::CIS
passed by the learned trial Court on 23.08.2019 and
.
26.08.2019, which was affirmed by learned Additional Sessions
Judge-I, Una, District Una, H.P. on 26.09.2025, is ordered to be
suspended, during the pendency of the revision, subject to the
following conditions:
(i) That the applicant/petitioner shall furnish
of
personal bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/-, along
with one surety of the like amount, to the
satisfaction of the learned trial Court, within a
rt period of four weeks from today, with an
undertaking that he will surrender before the
learned trial Court to serve the remaindersubstantive sentence, in case of ultimate
dismissal of the present revision, by this Court;
(ii) That the applicant/petitioner shall deposit
30% of the total amount of compensation, if notdeposited earlier, which has been referred to by
the learned trial Court as fine, with the learned
trial Court, within a period of eight weeks fromtoday, which shall be in addition to the amount,
if not, already deposited by the applicant.
(iii) The applicant/petitioner shall not leave the
territory of India without the prior permission ofthe Court.
A copy of this order be sent to the learned trial Court,
with a direction that the report of compliance of this order be
submitted to this Court, on or before the next date of hearing.
List the matter on 19.03.2026.
( Romesh Verma )
Vacation Judge
February 19, 2026 (Ritu)
::: Downloaded on – 19/02/2026 20:30:23 :::CIS
