Punjab-Haryana High Court
Jaideep Rana vs Kuldeep Deswal on 5 November, 2024
Author: Rajesh Bhardwaj
Bench: Rajesh Bhardwaj
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:143629
CRM-M-54810-2024 -1-
124 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
CRM-M-54810-2024 (O&M)
Date of Decision: 05.11.2024
Jaideep Rana ..... Petitioner
Versus
Kuldeep Deswal .......Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH BHARDWAJ
Present: Mr. D.S. Matya, Advocate, for the petitioner.
Rajesh Bhardwaj, J. (ORAL)
1. Prayer in the present petition filed under Section 528 BNSS,
2023 is for quashing the impugned order dated 15.10.2024 (Annexure P-4)
passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Gurugram in CRA-489-2024
titled as "Jaideep Rana vs. Kuldeep Deswal" whereby the petitioner has been
directed to deposit 20% of the amount of fine or compensation as awarded
by learned JMIC in favour of the complainant/respondent, within 60 days
from the date of order.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner has stated that petitioner was
convicted by learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Gurugram under Section
138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act, 1881 (for brevity,`the NI Act'), vide
judgment dated 02/16.09.2024 and sentenced to undergo simple
imprisonment for five months and was ordered to pay compensation of
Rs.40,00,000/-. It is further submitted that against the order dated
02/16.09.2024, the petitioner filed an appeal before the Court of learned
Additional Sessions at Gurugram, which is pending for 16.12.2024. Though
application for suspension of sentence of petitioner was allowed, vide order
dated 15.10.2024 Annexure P-4, however, the appellate Court, ordered the
1 of 3
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:143629
petitioner to deposit 20% of the compensation amount with aid of Section
148 of the NI Act within 60 days. He has submitted that the petitioner has
not been provided any opportunity of hearing to submit his defence before
the order was passed and hence the same is unsustainable in the eyes of law.
It is further submitted that the impugned order has been passed by the
learned Appellate Court in violation of the law settled by Hon'ble Supreme
Court in Jamboo Bhandari vs M.P.State Industrial Development
Corporation Ltd. and others, 2024(1) SCC (Cri) 90 wherein it has been
held that when Appellate Court considers the prayer under Section 389 of
the Cr.P.C. of an accused who has been convicted for offence under Section
138 of the NI 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 conclusion must be recorded, which is missing in the present case. It is
submitted that learned trial Court has not appreciated the circumstances of
the petitioner as per mandate of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Jamboo
Bhandari's case (supra).
3. Heard.
4. In view of the aforesaid facts, and the judicial precedent settled
by Hon'ble Apex Court in Jamboo Bhandari's case (supra), without
commenting anything on the merits of the case, the present petition is
allowed. Petitioner is relegated to approach the learned Appellate Court
concerned and file an appropriate application before it, which would be
2 of 3
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:143629
decided, by taking into consideration the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex
Court in Jamboo Bhandari's case (supra) in this regard within one month
from the date of filing of the application. The directions given in the order
dated 15.10.2024 by learned Appellate Court to the extent of depositing 20%
of compensation amount within 60 days from the date of order, is set aside.
(RAJESH BHARDWAJ)
05.11.2024 JUDGE
sharmila Whether Speaking/Reasoned : Yes/No
Whether Reportable : Yes/No
3 of 3
