IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA

AT CHANDIGARH

CRM-M-89-2026 (O&M)

Date of decision : 09.01.2026

Rajender Kumar ...Petitioner

Versus

M/s Banke Bihari Bhatta Company ...Respondent

CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE MANISHA BATRA

Present:- Mr. Sunil Sihag, Advocate

for the petitioner.

*****

MANISHA BATRA, J. (Oral)

1. The instant petition has been filed under Section 528 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 seeking quashing of order dated 04.09.2025 (Annexure P-3), passed by the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Palwal in Criminal Appeal No. 136 of 2025, titled as Rajender Kumar vs. Banke Bihari, 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’), the learned appellate Court had directed him to deposit 20% of the compensation amount as awarded by the learned trial Court within a period

of 30 days from the date of passing the order.

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.

3. This Court has heard the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner.

4. On a perusal of the record, it is revealed that the learned trial Court, vide judgment of conviction dated 05.08.2025, 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 of one year, had also directed him to pay compensation to the tune of cheque amount i.e. Rs. 9,50,000/-. 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 04.09.2025, suspended the sentence of petitioner, subject to his depositing 20% of the compensation amount with the trial Court.

5. 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