Punjab-Haryana High Court
Karamjeet Kaur vs Gurjant Singh Thr Lrs And Another on 19 November, 2025
CRM-M-14449-2024 (O&M) -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
125
CRM-M-14449-2024 (O&M)
Date of decision : 19.11.2025
Karamjeet Kaur ...Petitioner
Versus
Gurjant Singh through LRs and another ...Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE MANISHA BATRA
Present:- Mr. S. S. Gill, Advocate
for the petitioner.
Mr. Mohinder Singh, Advocate
for respondent No. 1.
*****
MANISHA BATRA, J. (Oral)
1. The instant petition has been filed by the petitioner under
Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing of the impugned order dated 21.02.2024
(Annexure P-3) passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sangrur, to the
extent of direction to deposit 20% of amount of compensation passed under
Section 148 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 in Criminal Appeal No.100
of 21.02.2024, which was filed against the judgment of conviction and order
of sentence dated 03.02.2024 (Annexure P-1) passed by learned Judicial
Magistrate First Class, Sangrur, in criminal complaint No.1903 dated
20.09.2017 bearing No.NACT-832-2017 titled Gurjant Singh Versus
Karamjeet Kaur under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881.
1 of 4
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 the deposit
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. To fortify his argument, he has
placed reliance upon the judgments passed by the co-ordinate Benches of
this Court in Abdul Rashid vs. Kuldeep Singh, CRM-M-3878-2024, decided
on 24.01.2024, Sarif Mohammad @ Sareef Mohammad vs. Swaran Singh
and another, CRM-M-20840-2024, decided on 26.04.2024, Vikram Singh
and another vs. Nasar and another, CRM-M-6508-2024, decided on
08.02.2024 and Sahil Puri vs. Sonu Kumar and another,
CRM-M-2503-2024, decided on 18.01.2024 and M/s Coromandal
International Limited vs. Shri Ambica Sales Corporation, CRM-M-7799-
2025, decided on 24.09.2025.
3. Learned counsel for respondent No. 1 has no serious objection
if the matter is remanded to learned appellate Court for deciding the same
afresh in view of law as laid down in aforecited judgments.
4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties at considerable
length and have also gone through the material placed on record.
5. On a perusal of the record, it is revealed that the learned trial
Court, vide judgment of conviction dated 03.02.2024, passed 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
2 of 4
of six months, had also directed him to pay compensation to the tune of
Rs. 35,00,000/-. 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 order dated 21.02.2024, suspended the
sentence of petitioner, subject to his depositing 20% of the compensation
amount with the trial Court.
6. In Jamboo Bhandari vs. M. P. State Industrial Development
Corporation Ltd. And others : (2024) 1 SCC (Cri) 90, it was observed by
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 will amount to deprivation of the right of appeal of the appellant.
This proposition of law is shown to have been followed by the co-ordinate
Benches of this Court in Abdul Rashid's case (supra) as well as afore cited
other similar cases. In the 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 waiver 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 whether 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
21.02.2024 cannot be stated to be sustainable to the extent to which the
condition of deposit of 20% of the compensation amount was imposed.
3 of 4
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 the
case by granting an opportunity 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 case (supra). The
petition stands disposed of.
7. The petitioner is directed to appear before the appellate Court
on or before 12.12.2025.
19.11.2025 (MANISHA BATRA)
Waseem Ansari JUDGE
Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No
Whether reportable Yes/No
4 of 4
