Punjab-Haryana High Court
Dalbir Singh vs Vikas Tushir on 23 September, 2024
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:126720
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
143-2 CRM-M M No.47060 of 2024
Date of decision: 23.09.2024
DALBIR SINGH .... Petitioner
Versus
VIKAS TUSHIR .... Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE MANISHA BATRA
Present : Mr Parminder Singh,, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr.
****
MANISHA BATRA,
BATRA J. (oral)
1. The instant petition has been filed by the petitioner seeking
quashing of order dated 27.03.2024
.03.2024 passed by learned Sessions Judge, Sonipat,
in CRA No.82
82/2024 titled as Dalbir Singh vs. Vikas Tushir, whereby,, while
suspending the sentence of the petitioner, as awarded to him in criminal
complaint filed under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (for
short 'N.I. Act') deposit 20% of the compensat
compensation
ion amount as awarded by the
trial Court.
2. It is argued by learned counsel for the petitioner that the
impugned order is not sustainable in the eyes of law as learned appellate Court,
while giving such direction, failed to consider the fact that deposit
it of 20% of
the compensation amount was not absolute requirement for suspension of
sentence and this condition was to be imposed in exceptional circumstances.
Hence, it is urged that the impugned order passed by the appellate Court is
liable to be set aside.
aside. To fortify his argument, he has placed reliance upon the
judgments passed by the co-ordinate
co ordinate Benches of this Court in CRM-M-3878--
2024, titled as Abdul Rashid vs. Kuldeep Singh, decided on 24.01.2024,
1 of 3
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:126720
CRM-M No.470
CRM-M-20840
20840-2024 titled as Sarif Mohammad @ Sareef Mohammad vs.
Swaran Singh and another, decided on 26.04.2024
26.04.2024, CRM-M-6508-2024 tiled
as Vikram Singh and another vs. Nasar and another, decided on 08.02.2024
and CRM-M-2503
2503-2024 titled as Sahil Puri vs. Sonu Kumar and another, ,
decided on 18.01.2024
3. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner at considerable
length and have also gone through the material placed on record
record.
4. On a perusal of the record, it is revealed that the learned trial
Court, vide judgment of conviction dated 29.02
.02.2024, passed
d in a complaint
filed under Section 138 of N. I. Act, had held the petitioner guilty for
commission of offence punishable under the aforementioned section and apart
from awarding sentence to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one
year and two months,
mon , had also directed him to pay compensation to the tune of
cheque amount i.e. Rs. 10,40,000/-.. The petitioner challenged the order passed
by the trial Court by filing aforesaid appeal before the learned appellate Court
and the appellate Court, vide impugned
impugned order dated 27.03.2024,, suspended the
sentence of petitioner, subject to his depositing 20% of the compensation
amount with the trial Court.
Court
5. In Jamboo Bhandari vs. M. P. State Industrial Development
Corporation Ltd. And others : (2024) 1 SCC (Cri) 90,, it was observed
Hon'ble Supreme Court that deposit of 20% of the compensation amount was
not an absolute requirement for suspension of sentence, if the Court is satisfied
that the condition of such deposit will be unjust or imposing of such a
condition
dition will amount to deprivation of the right of appeal of the appellant.
2 of 3
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:126720
CRM-M No.470
This proposition of law is shown to have been followed by the co
co-ordinate
ordinate
Benches of this Court in Abdul Rashid's case (supra) as well as afore cited
other similar cases. In the instant
instant case, while imposing condition of deposit of
20% of compensation amount, the learned appellate Court is not shown to have
given any opportunity to the petitioner to make submissions regarding the
exceptional circumstances warranting requirement of wai
waiver
ver of depositing of
20% of compensation amount and is shown to have imposed the said condition
without the same. Therefore, keeping in view the settled proposition of law to
the effect that the appellate Court was firstly required to consider as to whethe
whetherr
the instant case falls within the exceptions warranting grant of suspension of
sentence without imposing condition of deposit of 20% of compensation
amount/fine, the impugned order dated 27.03.2024
.03.2024 cannot be stated to be
sustainable to the extent to which
which the condition of deposit of 20% of the
compensation amount was imposed. Accordingly, the same is set aside to that
extent. The matter is remanded to learned appellate Court for deciding the
same afresh after re-examining
re examining the case by granting an opportuni
opportunity
ty to the
petitioner to make submissions regarding exceptional circumstances
warranting waiver of requirement of depositing 20% of the compensation
amount in pursuance of judgment passed by Hon'ble Supreme Court in
Jamboo Bhandari's
Bhandari case (supra). The petition
ion stands disposed of.
(MANISHA BATRA)
23.09.2024 JUDGE
Jyoti-IV
Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No.
Whether reportable : Yes/No
3 of 3
