Harpreet Singh Alias Shanty v. Jaswinder Kaur

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA

AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision: 26.09.2025 HARPREET SINGH ALIAS SHANTY ....Petitioner(s)

VERSUS

JASWINDER KAUR ....Respondent(s) CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SUKHVINDER KAUR

Present:

Mr. Dhiraj Jindal, Advocate for the petitioner. **** SUKHVINDER KAUR , J. (Oral) The present petition under Section 528 BNSS has been filed for quashing of order dated 20.04.2023 (Annexure P-3) passed by the Court of learned Appellate Court, in an appeal bearing CRA-140 of 2023, whereby, while suspending the sentence of the petitioner, awarded to him in complaints filed under Section 138 of NI Act, 1881, learned Court below directed the petitioner to deposit 20% of the compensation amount by the next date of hearing.

2.

The present complaints under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (hereinafter to be referred as N.I. Act) were filed by the complainant with the submissions that the petitioner borrowed a sum of Rs.10 lakhs from the complainant and in order to discharge his legal liability he had issued three cheques i.e. cheque No.118061 dated 31.03.2016 for a sum of Rs.1.70 lakh, cheque No.118062 dated 30.06.2016 for a sum of Rs.2 lakhs and cheque No.029833 dated 27.02.2017 for a sum of Rs.5.50 lakh. On

presentation of the same, it was dishonoured and returned with the remarks 'Funds Insufficient' vide separate memos dated 27.06.2016, 21.09.2016 and 01.03.2017, respectively.

3.

Vide judgment and order dated 13.02.2023 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Patiala, the petitioner was convicted and sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of 18 months for commission of offence punishable under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act in each complaint with a direction that the accused will pay compensation to the complainant equal to the amount of cheques Ex.C1 in all the complaints in dispute with future interest @ 9% per annum from the date of judgment so as to compensate the complainant for the harassment on account of dishonour of the cheque in question. Thereafter, the petitioner preferred an appeal against the said judgment of conviction and order of sentence before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Patiala. The learned Appellate Court vide order dated 20.04.2023, suspended the sentence of the petitioner subject to depositing 20% of the compensation amount within 30 days.

4.

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 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."

5.

Having heard learned counsel for the petitioner 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 20.04.2023 whereby, the condition of depositing 20% of compensation amount has been imposed for granting suspension of sentence upon the petitioner 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 warrants waiver of the requirement of deposit of 20% of the compensation awarded by learned trial Court.

6.

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).

7.

The petition is disposed of accordingly.

8.

Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, also stand(s) disposed of.

(SUKHVINDER KAUR) September 26, 2025 JUDGE Sangeeta Whether reasoned/speaking:

Yes/No Whether reportable:

Yes/No