CRM-M/28789/2025 of SANDEEP SINGH Vs STATE OF PUNJAB AND ANOTHER on 23 July 2026

CRM CRM CRM CRM-M-28789

IN THE HIG IN THE HIG IN THE HIG IN THE HIG

Sandeep Sing

State of Punja

Date of Decis Date of Decis Date of Decis Date of Decis Date of Uploa Date of Uploa Date of Uploa Date of Uploa

CORAM:

CORAM:

CORAM:

CORAM:

Present Present Present Present:

SUMEET GO SUMEET GO SUMEET GO SUMEET GO

Section 528 quashing of t the learned A been ordered of the impugn 9-2025

GH COURT OF PUNJAB AND H GH COURT OF PUNJAB AND H GH COURT OF PUNJAB AND H GH COURT OF PUNJAB AND H

CRM CRM CRM CRM-M-28789

28789-2 gh versus ab and another sion: sion: sion: sion: July 23 July 23 July 23 July 23, , , , 2026

ading: ading: ading: ading: July 23 July 23 July 23 July 23, 2026 , 2026 , 2026 , 2026 HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUME HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUME HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUME HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUME Mr. Chahat Goyal, Advocate for t (presence marked through video presence marked through video presence marked through video presence marked through video- Mr. Adhiraj Singh Thind, AAG P None for respondent No.2. ***** ***** ***** ***** OEL OEL OEL OEL, J. (Oral) , J. (Oral) , J. (Oral) , J. (Oral) The present petition has been p of the BNSS, 2023 (erstwhile the impugned order dated 18.12 Additional Sessions Judge, Sang to deposit 20% of the compensat ned order reads thus:

“Heard. Along with main app Cr.P.C for suspending the sentence applicant on bail during the pendenc Heard. Appellant/accused has been offence under Section 138 of N.I. A to undergo R.I. for the period not exc the appeal is likely to take time, h awarded to the appellant/accused is

HARYANA AT HARYANA AT HARYANA AT HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CHANDIGARH CHANDIGARH CHANDIGARH

….Petitioner …..Respondents EET GOEL EET GOEL EET GOEL EET GOEL the petitioner conferencing conferencing conferencing conferencing). Punjab. preferred by the petitioner under Section 482 Cr. P.C.) seeking .2024 (Annexure P-2) passed by grur, whereby, the petitioner has tion amount. The relevant portion peal, an application under section 389 e of imprisonment and releasing the ncy of the appeal has also been filed. n convicted and sentenced for the Act. The appellant has been sentenced xceeding two years. As the disposal of hence the sentence of imprisonment is suspended till the decision of the

r s r g y s n e d. e d f t e MAHAVIR SINGH 2026.07.23 18:14 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/ judgment

CRM CRM CRM CRM-M-28789

28789-2025

appeal, subject to furnishing the bail bonds in the sum of Rs.50000/- with one surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the Trial Court/Duty Magistrate within a period of 15 days from today. Accused is directed to appear before the Court on each and every date of hearing. Bail bonds after acceptance and attestation shall be transmitted to this Court. Perusal of the judgment dated 19.11.2024 further reveals that the accused is directed pay compensation to the tune of double the cheque amount i.e. Rs.11,12,500/- to the complainant. In Jamboo Bhandari vs. M. P. State Industrial Development Jamboo Bhandari vs. M. P. State Industrial Development Jamboo Bhandari vs. M. P. State Industrial Development Jamboo Bhandari vs. M. P. State Industrial Development Corporation Lt Corporation Lt Corporation Lt Corporation Ltd. And others: (2024) 1 SCC (Cri) 90, it was observed

d. And others: (2024) 1 SCC (Cri) 90, it was observed

d. And others: (2024) 1 SCC (Cri) 90, it was observed

d. And others: (2024) 1 SCC (Cri) 90, it was observed Hon'ble Supreme Court that deposit of 20% of the compensation Hon'ble Supreme Court that deposit of 20% of the compensation Hon'ble Supreme Court that deposit of 20% of the compensation 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 Hon’ble High Court of Punjab & Haryana in case titled as Abdul Rashid Abdul Rashid Abdul Rashid Abdul Rashid Vs. Kuldeep Singh, CRM Vs. Kuldeep Singh, CRM Vs. Kuldeep Singh, CRM Vs. Kuldeep Singh, CRM-M-3878

3878- 2024, decided on 24.01.2024, Sarif 2024, decided on 24.01.2024, Sarif 2024, decided on 24.01.2024, Sarif 2024, decided on 24.01.2024, Sarif Mohammad alias Sareef Mohammad Vs. Swaran Singh and Another Mohammad alias Sareef Mohammad Vs. Swaran Singh and Another Mohammad alias Sareef Mohammad Vs. Swaran Singh and Another Mohammad alias Sareef Mohammad Vs. Swaran Singh and Another CRM CRM CRM CRM-M-20840 20840 20840 20840-2024, decided on 26.04.2024, Vikram Singh and Another 2024, decided on 26.04.2024, Vikram Singh and Another 2024, decided on 26.04.2024, Vikram Singh and Another 2024, decided on 26.04.2024, Vikram Singh and Another Vs. Nasar and Another CRM Vs. Nasar and Another CRM Vs. Nasar and Another CRM Vs. Nasar and Another CRM-M6508 M6508 M6508 M6508-2024 decided on 08.02.2024 and 2024 decided on 08.02.2024 and 2024 decided on 08.02.2024 and 2024 decided on 08.02.2024 and Sahil Puri Vs. Sonu Kumar Sahil Puri Vs. Sonu Kumar Sahil Puri Vs. Sonu Kumar Sahil Puri Vs. Sonu Kumar and Another CRM and Another CRM and Another CRM and Another CRM-M-2503

2503-2024, decided on 2024, decided on 2024, decided on 2024, decided on 18.01.2024 18.01.2024 18.01.2024 18.01.2024. In the instant case, while imposing condition of deposit of 20% of the compensation amount, an opportunity has been given to the appellant to show any exceptional circumstances warranting requirement of waiver of depositing of 20% of compensation amount as it has been so imposed by learned trial court, however, the appellant has failed to point out or to show any such exceptional circumstance. Therefore, the appellant is directed to deposit 20% of the total amount of compensation awarded by the trial Court within 30 days from today. If the accused fails to pay the 20% of total compensation amount within the stipulated period, the order of suspension shall automatically stands vacated. Let, notice of the appeal be issued to the respondent for 18.02.2025.”

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the petitioner is an agriculturist and earns his livelihood from the income of agriculture produce; due to his health ailments, the petitioner is not able to work properly MAHAVIR SINGH 2026.07.23 18:14 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/ judgment

CRM CRM CRM CRM-M-28789

28789-2025

and has no source of income. Learned counsel has further iterated that imposition of such condition of deposit of 20% of the amount of compensation as awarded by the learned trial Magistrate would effectively amount to taking away the right of appeal of the petitioner. Thus, it has been submitted that the impugned order be quashed, to the extent, that a condition of deposit of 20% of the amount of compensation as awarded by the trial Court, has been imposed.

3. Office note indicates that respondent No.2 stands served. However, none has caused appearance on behalf of said respondent. Learned State counsel has submitted that the petition in hand emanates from criminal complaint/ appeal pending under Section 138 of the NI Act, hence, State is not the contesting party.

4. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the paper-book.

5. Section 148 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, introduced through the 2018 amendment, empowers appellate courts to mandate the deposit of at least 20% of the fine or compensation amount by the accused as a condition for hearing an appeal against a conviction in cheque dishonour cases under Section 138. This provision aims to address the prolonged litigation faced by complainants and mitigate delays in receiving compensation, ensuring a balance between the accused person’s right to appeal and the complainant’s right to speedy justice. The amount deposited can be released to the complainant, reflecting the legislative intent to provide timely relief and deter frivolous appeals.

At this juncture, it would be apposite to refer herein to a judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court titled as Jamboo Bhandari vs. M.P. State Jamboo Bhandari vs. M.P. State Jamboo Bhandari vs. M.P. State Jamboo Bhandari vs. M.P. State Industrial Development Corporation Ltd. & Ors. Industrial Development Corporation Ltd. & Ors. Industrial Development Corporation Ltd. & Ors. Industrial Development Corporation Ltd. & Ors. 2023 (10) SCC 446 2023 (10) SCC 446 2023 (10) SCC 446 2023 (10) SCC 446; ; ; ; relevant whereof reads as under: MAHAVIR SINGH 2026.07.23 18:14 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/ judgment

CRM CRM CRM CRM-M-28789

28789-2025

“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 accused 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 conclusion must be recorded.

8. The submission of the learned counsel appearing for the original complainant is that neither before the Sessions Court nor before the High Court, there was a plea made by the appellants that an exception may be made in these cases and the requirement of deposit or minimum 20% of the amount be dispensed with. He submits that if such a prayer was not made by the appellants, there were no reasons for the Courts to consider the said plea.

9. We disagree with the above submission. When an accused applies under Section 389 of the Cr.P.C. for suspension of sentence, he normally applies for grant of relief of suspension of sentence without any condition. Therefore, when a blanket order is sought by the appellants, the Court has to consider whether the case falls in exception or not.”

6. The convict bears the onus of demonstrating exceptional circumstances to persuade the appellate court to waive the mandatory deposit of compensation under Section 148 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. Considering the legislative intent behind the provision, which seeks to expedite justice and alleviate the complainant’s hardship due to prolonged litigation, it is generally appropriate for the appellate court to impose this condition when an appeal is filed against a conviction under Section 138. Such a requirement ensures that the complainant is not unjustly deprived of compensation while safeguarding the appellate process from frivolous or dilatory tactics. Under Section 148 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, the requirement to deposit the compensation amount as a condition for appeal is generally mandatory, emphasizing its status as a rule. MAHAVIR SINGH 2026.07.23 18:14 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/ judgment

CRM CRM CRM CRM-M-28789

28789-2025

The Hon’ble Supreme Court in a judgment titled as Muskan Muskan Muskan Muskan Enterprises & Anr. Vs. The State of Punjab 2024 INSC 1046, Enterprises & Anr. Vs. The State of Punjab 2024 INSC 1046, Enterprises & Anr. Vs. The State of Punjab 2024 INSC 1046, Enterprises & Anr. Vs. The State of Punjab 2024 INSC 1046, has held thus:

“xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx. While there can be no gainsaying that normally the discretion of the Appellate Court should lean towards requiring a deposit to be made with the quantum of such deposit depending upon the factual situation in every individual case, more so because an order under challenge does not bear the mark of invalidity on its forehead, retention of the power of such court not to order any deposit in a given case (which in its view and for the recorded reasons is exceptional) and calling for exercise of the discretion to not order deposit, has to be conceded. xxxxxxxxxxxxxx.”

Ergo, the ratio decidendi of the judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in cases of Jamboo Bhandari Jamboo Bhandari Jamboo Bhandari Jamboo Bhandari (supra) and Muskan Enterprises Muskan Enterprises Muskan Enterprises Muskan Enterprises (supra) enunciates that the appellate Court holds the discretion to waive this condition only in exceptional circumstances. Such circumstances must be demonstrated through compelling and substantiated material provided by the appellant-convict. Absent such cogent material, it would be in appropriate for appellate Court to impose such condition. This approach ensures adherence to the legislative intent, discouraging frivolous appeals and protecting the interests of the complainant.

6.1. Applying the ratio decidendi of the judgments in the case of Jamboo Bhandari Jamboo Bhandari Jamboo Bhandari Jamboo Bhandari case (supra) and Muskan Enterprises Muskan Enterprises Muskan Enterprises Muskan Enterprises (supra), no ground is made out to quash/modify the condition imposed vide the impugned order whereby the petitioner has been directed to deposit 20% of the amount of the compensation as awarded by the learned trial Magistrate. The grounds pleaded by the petitioner herein cannot be said to be sufficient enough for carving out an exception from the mandate contained in Section 148 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. It also cannot be said, in the facts and circumstances of the present case, that imposition of the condition of deposit of 20% of the amount of compensation as awarded by the learned trial Magistrate can be said to be unjust or would amount to effectively taking away the right of appeal of MAHAVIR SINGH 2026.07.23 18:14 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/ judgment

CRM CRM CRM CRM-M-28789

28789-2025

petitioner. Thus, the impugned order does not suffer from any infirmity nay legal infirmity calling for any interference by this Court. Accordingly, the petition in hand is dismissed dismissed dismissed dismissed.

7. Pending application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed off.

8. Nothing said hereinabove shall be deemed to be an expression of opinion upon merits of the appeal pending before the learned Sessions Court.

(SUMEET GOEL) (SUMEET GOEL) (SUMEET GOEL) (SUMEET GOEL)

JUDGE JUDGE JUDGE JUDGE July 23 July 23 July 23 July 23, 2026 , 2026 , 2026 , 2026 mahavir Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No Whether reportable:

Yes/No MAHAVIR SINGH 2026.07.23 18:14 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/ judgment