[Cites 3, Cited by 0]
Punjab-Haryana High Court
Kewal Krishan Kumar vs M/S Rajinder Pal And Sons on 20 January, 2026
CRM-M No.11078 of 2025 (O&M) 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
210 CRM-M No.11078 of 2025 (O&M)
Date of Decision :20.01.2026
Kewal Krishan Kumar
......Petitioner
Versus
M/s Rajinder Pal & Sons
...... Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SURYA PARTAP SINGH
Present : Ms. Vibhuti Narania, Advocate for the petitioner.
(through hybrid mode).
Mr. Namit Khurana, Advocate for the respondent.
SURYA PARTAP SINGH, J. (Oral):
1. This petition under Section 528 of Bharatiya Nagrik Surakhsa
Sanhita, 2023 has been filed for quashing of order dated 11.03.2024,
hereinafter being referred to as 'impugned order' passed by the learned
Additional Sessions Judge, Kurukshtetra, hereinafter being referred to as
'Appellate Court'.
2. In nut-shell the facts emerging from record are that petitioner was
prosecuted for the commission of offence punishable under Section 138 of
Negotiable Instruments Act 1881, hereinafter being referred to as 'N.I. Act',
and the trial conducted against the petitioner culminated into his conviction.
Against the judgment of conviction the petitioner had preferred an appeal in
the Court of Sessions. The above mentioned appeal was dealt with by the
Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge, and by virtue of above mentioned
order the learned Sessions Judge issued a direction for the deposit of 20% of
1 of 4
compensation, awarded to the respondent, within a period of 60 days. It is also
relevant to mention here that subsequent thereto, the petitioner moved an
application for waiver of above mentioned condition but the same has been
dismissed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge on 10.12.2024 by passing
a detailed order.
3. Aggrieved of the of the above mentioned order this petition has
been preferred on the ground that the learned Appellate Court while passing
the impugned order has ignored the extreme difficulty being faced by the
petitioner in complying with the condition imposed by impugned order. As
per learned counsel for the petitioner the petitioner is an old aged person, i.e.
71 years old, who is already facing prosecution in numerous cases and that the
age, health and financial condition of the petitioner does not permit him to pay
the above mentioned money. It has been further contended by learned counsel
for the petitioner that the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of 'Jamboo
Bhandari v. M.P. State Industrial Development Corporation Ltd. and others',
has already observed that the condition enshrined under Section 148 of NI Act
can be relaxed in the case of extreme hardship.
4. According to learned counsel for the petitioner the facts and
circumstances of the present case qualifies for the relaxation in the above said
condition, as per above mentioned law. The learned counsel for the petitioner
has also contended that the learned Appellate Court despite an application
moved by the petitioner, seeking for relaxation in the condition, has failed to
appreciate the facts as well as the relevant law.
5. The record has been perused carefully.
6. A perusal of record shows that on the day itself when the appeal
2 of 4
was filed the learned Appellate Court imposed the condition for the deposit of
20% of compensation awarded to the respondent. The above mentioned order
is in conformity with the statutory provisions enshrined under Section 148 of
N.I. Act. On the same day itself the petitioner expressed his desire to move an
application for relaxation of above mentioned condition, and when the above
mentioned application was filed the same was duly considered by the learned
Appellate Court. Thereafter by passing a detailed order the above mentioned
application was dismissed.
7. A bare perusal of above mentioned order shows that the learned
trial Court has analysed the facts of the case in detail, in the light of relevant
statutory provisions vis-a-vis relevant law. Thereafter, vide a well reasoned
order the application has been dismissed. It is also relevant to mention here
that the perusal of record no where shows that the petitioner, who has been
directed to pay only 20% of compensation has any kind of extreme hardship
which prohibits him from complying with above mentioned statutory
provisions. In this regard the observations made by the learned trial Court are
relevant. It has been observed by the learned trial Court that "the main ground
on which the present application has been moved is that he has filed total 61
criminal appeals in the Courts of Haryana regarding dishonour of cheques in
which the total amount involved is Rs.3.20 crore and 20% of the cheque
amounts would come to Rs.64 lacs. However, merely because the appellant has
been convicted in 61 cases is not an exceptional circumstance in his favour,
rather it shows that the appellant is a habitual offender. I find merit in the
contention of learned counsel for the respondent-complainant that the
appellant-convict has to face all financial liabilities being a convict in the
3 of 4
aforesaid number of cases and he cannot take benefit of his own wrongs. The
proposal of the applicant taken in para No.5 of the application to make
consolidated payment in the form of a fixed deposit is contrary to his
submission that he could not make payment of the amount due to financial
constraints"
8. Taking into consideration the fact that the order passed by the
learned appellate Court is a well reasoned order and the same is in conformity
with the relevant legal provision, it is hereby held that there is no scope for
indulgence and interference in the impugned order. Since there is no illegality
or infirmity in the order passed by the learned trial Court, it is hereby held that
the present petition is devoid of merits and deserves dismissal. Hence, the
same is hereby dismissed accordingly.
(SURYA PARTAP SINGH)
JUDGE
20.01.2026
Manoj Bhutani
Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No
Whether reportable Yes/No
4 of 4
