IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM-M-8762-2026 (O&M)

Decided on: 16.02.2026 SURESH SINGH …...Petitioners Versus RAJ KUMAR …...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUBHAS MEHLA Present: Mr. Rahul Jaswal, Advocate for the petitioner.

****

SUBHAS MEHLA, J. (Oral)

1. Prayer in this petition is for setting aside of impugned order dated 13.06.2025 (Annexure P-2) passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Hoshiarpur in case bearing CRA No.223 of 2025 dated 13.06.2025, arising out of NACT/164/2020 decided on 22.05.2025) whereby the petitioner is directed to deposit 20% of the amount of cheque in question total compensation within a period of 60 days.

2. The present complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (hereinafter to be referred as N.I. Act) was filed by the complainant on a dishonour of cheque No.514874 dated 23.10.2020, amounting to Rs.9,50,000/-, allegedly issued by the petitioner in favour of respondent/complainant.

3. Vide judgment and order dated 22.05.2025 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Mukerian, the petitioner was convicted and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of 01 year and to pay compensation equal to the cheque amount along with interest to the complainant. Thereafter, the petitioner preferred an appeal against the said judgment of conviction and order of sentence before the learned Additional Sessions Judge concerned. The learned Appellate Court vide order dated 13.06.2025, suspended the sentence of the petitioner and was directed to deposit 20% of the fine/compensation amount imposed by trial Court within a period of 60 days.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner inter alia contends that the learned Appellate Court failed to appreciate the facts in the right perspective and imposed the condition to deposit 20% of the compensation.

5. Thus, learned counsel for the petitioner contends that petitioner is not able to deposit 20% fine/compensation as he is directed to deposit under the impugned order dated 13.06.2025 inasmuch he is under severe financial distress and the petitioner prayed that petition be accepted.

6. On a query posed by this Court, learned State counsel for the petitioner admits that the petitioner has neither prayed nor moved any specific application before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, who passed the impugned order and also had not argued that the petitioner’s case is an exceptional case which warrants grant of suspension of sentence without imposing the condition of deposit of 20% of the fine/compensation amount.

7. Heard.

8. Given the nature of order this Court proposes to pass, no notice is required to issue private respondent.

9. Keeping in view the aforesaid facts and circumstances and the fact that the impugned order is dated 13.06.2025 whereby the petitioner was directed to pay 20% of the cheque amount as compensation within a period of 60 days, however, since more than 08 months have passed, the petitioner neither prayed nor moved any application before the Appellate Court that the present case is an exceptional case which warrants grant of suspension of sentence without imposing the condition of deposit of 20% of the fine/compensation amount. Even the petitioner is approaching this Court after lapse of 7/8 months from the passing of the impugned order. Thus, in view of the conduct of the present petitioner, this Court does not find merit in the present petition and the same is hereby dismissed.

(SUBHAS MEHLA)

JUDGE

16.02.2026

Sonia Puri