Punjab-Haryana High Court
Harpreet Singh vs Raj Dulari on 12 March, 2024
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:035483
2024:PHHC:035483
CRM-M-57883-2023 1
208 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
CHANDIGARH
CRM-M-57883-2023 (O&M)
Date of Decision: 12.03.2024
HARPREET SINGH
...Petitioner
V/S
RAJ DULARI
...Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARPREET SINGH BRAR
Present: Ms. Ekta Chauhan, Advocate
for the petitioner.
Mr. Ankur Sharma, Advocate for the respondent.
****
HARPREET SINGH BRAR J. (Oral)
1. The present petition has been filed under Section 482 of Cr.P.C.
seeking quashing of the order dated 11.09.2023 (Annexure P-1) passed by
learned Additional Sessions Judge, Chandigarh in CRA No. 419 of 2023
(NACT No. 5187/2019) whereby the petitioner has been directed to
deposit 20% of the compensation amount awarded by learned trial Court.
2. The complainant's case in brief is that petitioner approached the
complainant for extending a friendly loan of Rs. 1 Crore as he wanted to
extend his business of automobile. In view of the family relations with the
accused-petitioner, the complainant acceded to the request of the petitioner
and transferred a sum of Rs. 88 lacs from her account in the personal
account of the petitioner on various occasions through RTGS. Thereafter,
the petitioner in order to discharge his liability, issued two cheques in
favour of the complainant, but when the said cheques was presented for its
realization, the same were dishonoured with the remarks "Funds
1 of 4
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:035483
2024:PHHC:035483
Insufficient" and on the basis of the same, complaint under Section 138 of
Negotiable Instruments Act was filed. Vide order dated 18.08.2023 passed
by learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Chandigarh, the petitioner was
sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year for
commission of offence punishable under Section 138 of Negotiable
Instruments Act and was further directed to pay compensation to the tune
of Rs. 28,00,000/- to the complainant/respondent. Thereafter, the petitioner
preferred an appeal against the said judgment of conviction and order of
sentence before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Chandigarh. The
learned Appellate Court vide the impugned order dated 11.09.2023
(Annexure P-1), suspended the sentence of the petitioner subject to
depositing 20% of the compensation amount.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner inter alia contends that the
learned lower Appellate Court failed to appreciate the facts in the right
perspective and imposed the condition to deposit 20% of the compensation
and such a condition is illegal, arbitrary and in violation of the law as laid
down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Criminal Appeal Nos.2741 of
2023 (@ SLP(Crl.) Nos. 4927 of 2023 Jamboo Bhandari vs. M.P. State
Industrial Development Corporation Ltd. and others, decided on
04.09.2023. Speaking through Justice Abhay S. Oka, it has been held as
follows:-
"6. What is held by this Court is that a purposive
interpretation should be made of Section 148 of the
N.I. Act. Hence, normally, Appellate Court will be
justified in imposing the condition of deposit as
provided in Section 148. However, in a case where the
Appellate Court is satisfied that the condition of
2 of 4
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:035483
2024:PHHC:035483
deposit of 20% will be unjust or imposing such a
condition will amount to deprivation of the right of
appeal of the appellant, exception can be made for the
reasons specifically recorded.
7. Therefore, when Appellate Court considers
the prayer under Section 389 of the Cr.P.C. of an
petitioner who has been convicted for offence under
Section 138 of the N.I. Act, it is always open for the
Appellate Court to consider whether it is an
exceptional case which warrants grant of suspension
of sentence without imposing the condition of deposit
of 20% of the fine/compensation amount. As stated
earlier, if the Appellate Court comes to the conclusion
that it is an exceptional case, the reasons for coming
to the said 4 conclusion must be recorded."
4. Mr. Ankur Sharma, Advocate has put in appearance on behalf of
the respondent and files his power of attorney. Same is taken on record.
Registry is directed to tag the same at the appropriate place. Learned
counsel for the respondent vehemently opposes the prayer of learned
counsel for the petitioner.
5. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and after perusing
the judgment passed in Jamboo Bhandari (supra), the lower Appellate
Court was required to consider whether the present case falls in the
exception or not. The impugned order dated 11.09.2023 whereby, the
condition of depositing 20% of compensation amount has been imposed
for granting suspension of sentence is hereby set aside. The learned lower
Appellate Court is directed to re-examine the case after granting an
opportunity to the petitioner to make submissions regarding the
exceptional circumstances and decide whether it is an appropriate case that
3 of 4
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:035483
2024:PHHC:035483
warrants waiver of the requirement of deposit of 20% of the compensation
awarded by learned trial Court.
5. The matter is remanded back to the learned lower Appellate
Court with a direction to decide the matter afresh in accordance with law
in the light of judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Jamboo
Bhandari's case (supra).
6. Instant petition is disposed of accordingly.
(HARPREET SINGH BRAR)
12.03.2024 JUDGE
Ajay Goswami
Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No
Whether reportable Yes/No
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:035483
4 of 4
