Extension of time for settlement deposit upheld where delay was not deliberate and no substantial prejudice was shown.

In proceedings arising from a Section 138 Negotiable Instruments Act settlement, the High Court addressed whether time for depositing the balance settlement amount could be extended under Section 482 CrPC. It accepted that the default was not deliberate and was attributable to personal and financial , and held that extension of time was justified in the peculiar facts. The Court also declined to impose any additional compensation for the delay, noting that the delay was not substantial. Time for deposit of the balance amount was accordingly extended.

---

---

Issues: Whether time could be extended for deposit of the balance settlement amount in exercise of inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

Analysis: The petition arose from proceedings under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, in which the appellate court had accepted the settlement between the parties and made deposit of the remaining amount a condition for consequential relief. The requested extension was sought on the ground that the default in deposit was not intentional and was attributable to personal and financial difficulties. The Court accepted that the non-deposit was not deliberate and held that, in the peculiar facts, extension of time was justified. The Court also declined to impose any additional amount as compensation for the delay, finding the delay not substantial.

Conclusion: Time for deposit of the balance amount was extended and the petition was allowed.

---