Punjab-Haryana High Court
Deepak Kumar vs State Of Haryana And Another on 30 November, 2023
Author: Suvir Sehgal
Bench: Suvir Sehgal
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:154227
CRM-M-54807-2022 2023:PHHC:154227
122 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
CRM-M-54807-2022
Date of decision:- 30.11.2023
Deepak Kumar
... Petitioner
Versus
State of Haryana and another .. Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUVIR SEHGAL
Present:- Mr.R.S. Randhawa, Advocate
for the petitioner.
Mr.Munish Sharma, DAG, Haryana
for respondent No.1 - State.
Mr.Munish Mittal, Advocate
for respondent No.2.
****
SUVIR SEHGAL, J. (ORAL)
1. By way of present petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C.,
petitioner has laid challenge to order dated 29.09.2022, Annexure P1, passed
by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Faridabad in CRA No.307 of 2022
titled as "Deepak Kumar Versus Jal Shakti Vihar Residential Welfare
Society", whereby while granting bail to the petitioner, the Appellate Court
has imposed a condition of deposit of 20% of the compensation amount
under Section 148 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (for short - NI
Act).
2. Counsel for the petitioner submits that complainant - respondent
1 of 4
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:154227
CRM-M-54807-2022 2023:PHHC:154227
No.2 filed a complaint under Section 138 of NI Act claiming that a cheque
of Rs.10 lakhs drawn on HDFC Bank, Section 35, Faridabad from the
account of M/s Divyan Developers Private Ltd. in favour of the complainant
was given by the petitioner in discharge of a legally enforceable debt, which
on deposit has been dishonoured on account of "Insufficient Funds".
Counsel submits that the cheque in dispute was issued from the account of a
limited company. However, the complainant neither impleaded the company
as an accused nor did he serve any notice to it prior to the institution of the
complaint. Still further, it is his argument that the cheque had been given by
way of a security deposit, which has been misused by the complainant.
Counsel submits that although all the facts were brought to the notice of the
learned trial Court, but the trial Court vide judgment dated 24.08.2022,
Annexure P4, convicted the petitioner and sentenced him to imprisonment
for a period of one year and also directed him to pay a compensation of
Rs.20 lakhs i.e. double the cheque amount. Counsel submits that the
petitioner has instituted an appeal before the Appellate Court, which is
pending along with an application under Section 389 Cr.P.C. for releasing
the appellant on bail, which has been accepted by the impugned order and
while suspending the sentence of the petitioner, he has been directed to
deposit an amount of Rs.4 lakhs i.e. 20% of the compensation amount within
a period of 60 days. Counsel contends that as the complaint itself was not
maintainable, and the security cheque had been misused. Some other
complaints on the same cause were also filed by the complainant against
which, appeals are pending and the petitioner has been directed to deposit
20% of the compensation amount. Counsel submits that the petitioner is not
2 of 4
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:154227
CRM-M-54807-2022 2023:PHHC:154227
in a financial capacity to deposit the amount ordered by the Appellate Court.
In the alternative, he has prayed that the period for deposit of the amount be
extended.
3. Opposing the petition, counsel representing complainant -
respondent No.2 submits that deposit of 20% of the compensation amount
has been ordered in view of provisions as contained in Section 148 of NI Act
and the amount can neither be waived nor reduced. He submits that similar
orders passed in other complaints have been unsuccessfully challenged by
the petitioner before this Court and he has failed upto the Hon'ble Supreme
Court.
4. I have considered the submissions made by counsel for the parties.
5. Interpreting Section 148 of the NI Act, Supreme Court in
Surinder Singh Deswal @ Col.S.S. Deswal and others Versus Virender
Gandhi and another (2019) 11 SCC 341 has noticed the purpose behind the
introduction of the provision in the NI Act and has construed the provision
to be mandatory. It has been held that the Appellate Court is bound to order
the deposit of minimum 20% of the compensation amount or fine within a
period of 60 days, although this period can be extended by another 30 days
on a sufficient cause being shown by the accused.
6. In view of the enunciation of law by the Apex Court, there is no
ground to interfere in the order passed by the Appellate Court. However, it
cannot be disputed that some similar complaints had been instituted against
the appellants wherein similar orders have been passed and the petitioner has
been directed to deposit an amount equivalent to 20% of the compensation
awarded by the trial Court. The petitioner has claimed that he is not in a
3 of 4
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:154227
CRM-M-54807-2022 2023:PHHC:154227
financial capacity to deposit such a high amount in one go. Therefore,
keeping in view Sub-Section 2 of Section 148 of the NI Act, this Court is of
the view that the interest of justice would be secured in case the petitioner is
granted extended period of 30 days to deposit the amount.
7. In view of the above, petitioner is granted another period of 30
days from today to deposit the amount in compliance of the order, Annexure
P1, passed by the Appellate Court. All other conditions laid down in the said
order shall remain as they are.
8. Petition is disposed of.
(SUVIR SEHGAL)
JUDGE
30.11.2023
Brij
Whether Speaking/Reasoned Yes/No
Whether Reportable Yes/No
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:154227
4 of 4
