IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of decision: 12.05.2026 Atara @ Atar Singh ...Petitioner(s)

VERSUS Parveen Kumar and another ...Respondent(s)

CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD S. BHARDWAJ Present :- Mr. Rishi Pal Chaudhary, Advocate for the petitioner(s).

Mr. Kamaldeep Redhu, Advocate for respondent No.1-complainant.

Ms. Chhavi Sharma, AAG Haryana *****

VINOD S. BHARDWAJ, J. (Oral)

1. Prayer in the present petition is for quashing of the impugned order dated 28.05.2025 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Kurukshetra, in Criminal Appeal No.CRA-264-2024, titled as ‘Atara @ Atar Singh v. Parveen Kumar’, arising out of complaint bearing No. 996/2019 dated 01.07.2019, under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 directing the petitioner to deposit 20% of the compensation amount awarded by the trial Court in favour of the complainant.

2. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner contends that the petitioner is a poor person and is a labourer by profession. It is submitted that the trial Court while convicting the petitioner vide judgment dated 28.10.2024 directed the petitioner to pay a compensation of Rs.3,00,000/-, which is one and half times of the cheque amount. Aggrieved thereof, the petitioner preferred an appeal bearing No.CRA-264-2024. The Appellate Court vide order dated 29.11.2024, directed the petitioner to deposit 20% of the compensation amount within a period of 60 days, failing which, his bail was held liable to cancelled. Aggrieved thereof, the petitioner preferred CRM-M-6610-2025. The order dated 29.11.2024 passed by the Appellat Court was set aside to the extent of depositing 20% of the compensation amount with a direction to the Appellate Court to re-examine the case in view of the law laid down by Hon’ble Apex Court in the matter of ‘Jamboo Bhandari Vs. M.P. State Industrial Development Corporation Ltd. and others’ reported as 2024(1) SCC (Cri.) 90 and ‘Muskan Enterprises and another v. The State of Punjab and another’ , reported as 2024 SCC Online SC 4107, after affording the petitioner an opportunity to raise submissions regarding the existence of exceptional circumstances, and thereafter to pass a fresh order in accordance with law.

3. Consequent upon remand, the Appellate Court re-considered the claim of the petitioner for exemption/waiver of the pre-deposit of 20% of the compensation amount. The application was dismissed yet again and a fresh order directing pre-deposit to the extent of 20% of the compensation amount was passed on 28.05.2025, hence, the present petition.

4. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner re-iterates his submissions that the petitioner is not a person of means and is merely a farm labourer and has taken land in the village on lease for supporting his family, therefore, he does not possess the financial capacity to make the pre-

deposit of 20% of the compensation amount.

5. Counsel for the complainant on the other hands contends that the Appellate Court had considered all the submissions advanced by the petitioner in para No.11 of its order dated 28.05.2025 and it was specifically recorded therein that the sole document relied upon by the appellant was a family identification document reflecting an annual income between Rs.1,00,000/- and Rs. 1,40,000/-, to claim financial hardship. It was noticed that such a document was only secondary and not a primary proof to establish indigence or override the material demonstrating financial capacity of an accused. It was also noticed by the Appellate Court that the appellant has regularly transacted with a commission agency i.e. M/s Sushil Kumar Karan Singh, situated at Ladwa Anaj Mandi, Kurukshetra and has duly settled all outstanding accounts with the said firm. Further, the Appellate Court has also noticed that in the Execution Petition titled as ‘Anoop Singh and others Vs. Bakshish Singh and others’, the appellant was impleaded as legal heir of deceased-Gobind Singh and received a