CRM-M-48260 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH (146) KAMALPREET SINGH SATINDER SINGH CORAM: HON'BLE Present: Ms. Isha Goyal, Advocate and Mr. Raja Paramdeep Saini, Advocate for **** NEERJA K. KALSON 1. Present petition has been preferred under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, seeking quashing of order dated 30.07.2026 (Annexure P Judge, Amritsar (hereinafter being referred which while suspending the sentence of the petitioner, the learned Appellate Court directed the petitioner to deposit 20% of the amount of compensation as a condition precedent. The petitioner has been convicted for the commi offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (hereinafter referred to as ‘NI Act’). The petitioner has also challenged the subsequent order dated 11.08.2026, whereby his application seeking dispensing with the condi 148 of the NI Act was dismissed. 2. The record reveals that the petitioner faced trial in a complaint case titled as ‘Satinderpal Singh Vs. Kamalpreet Singh and others’ 8260-2026 (O&M) IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM-M Date of Decision: KAMALPREET SINGH Versus SATINDER SINGH CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE NEERJA K. Ms. Isha Goyal, Advocate and Mr. Raja Paramdeep Saini, Advocate for the petitioners. **** NEERJA K. KALSON, J. (ORAL) Present petition has been preferred under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, seeking quashing of order dated (Annexure P-4) passed by the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Amritsar (hereinafter being referred which while suspending the sentence of the petitioner, the learned Appellate Court directed the petitioner to deposit 20% of the amount of compensation as a condition precedent. The petitioner has been convicted for the commi offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (hereinafter referred to as ‘NI Act’). The petitioner has also challenged the subsequent order dated 11.08.2026, whereby his application seeking dispensing with the condition of deposit of 20% of the amount under Section 148 of the NI Act was dismissed. The record reveals that the petitioner faced trial in a complaint ‘Satinderpal Singh Vs. Kamalpreet Singh and others’ -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH M-48260-2026 (O&M) Date of Decision: 27.08.2026 ......PETITIONER .....RESPONDENT NEERJA K. KALSON Mr. Raja Paramdeep Saini, Advocate Present petition has been preferred under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, seeking quashing of order dated passed by the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Amritsar (hereinafter being referred to as ‘Appellate Court’), vide which while suspending the sentence of the petitioner, the learned Appellate Court directed the petitioner to deposit 20% of the amount of compensation as a condition precedent. The petitioner has been convicted for the commission of offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (hereinafter referred to as ‘NI Act’). The petitioner has also challenged the subsequent order dated 11.08.2026, whereby his application seeking tion of deposit of 20% of the amount under Section The record reveals that the petitioner faced trial in a complaint ‘Satinderpal Singh Vs. Kamalpreet Singh and others’, for the IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Present petition has been preferred under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, seeking quashing of order dated passed by the Court of learned Additional Sessions to as ‘Appellate Court’), vide which while suspending the sentence of the petitioner, the learned Appellate Court directed the petitioner to deposit 20% of the amount of compensation as ssion of offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (hereinafter referred to as ‘NI Act’). The petitioner has also challenged the subsequent order dated 11.08.2026, whereby his application seeking tion of deposit of 20% of the amount under Section The record reveals that the petitioner faced trial in a complaint , for the ATUL KUMAR TRIPATHI 2026.09.02 17:11 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-48260-2026 (O&M) -2- commission of an offence punishable under Section 138 of the NI Act. The complaint was instituted on 25.08.2020. The allegations in the complaint were that accused No.1 Kamalpreet Singh had been allotted a contract of transportation and had hired the vehicles/trucks of the complainant from time to time for transportation of goods. It was alleged that accused No.1 had issued cheque bearing No.276028 dated 10.01.2020 for a sum of Rs.12,00,000/- drawn on IndusInd Bank in favour of the complainant towards discharge of his pre-existing liability. The said cheque was dishonoured with the remarks “Payment stopped by drawer”. 3. The learned trial Court, vide judgment dated 15.07.2026, convicted the petitioner under Section 138 of the NI Act and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year. The learned trial Court also directed the petitioner to pay compensation of Rs.12,00,000/- along with a fine of Rs.1,000/- within two months from the date of judgment. Aggrieved of the abovementioned judgment, the petitioner preferred Criminal Appeal No.382 of 2026 before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Amritsar, along with an application seeking suspension of sentence. The learned Appellate Court, vide impugned order dated 30.07.2026, suspended the sentence of the petitioner subject to his furnishing bail bonds and depositing 20% of the amount imposed upon him, while directing him to appear before the learned trial Magistrate within ten days. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the learned Appellate Court, while imposing the abovementioned condition, did not afford any opportunity to the petitioner to explain his circumstances and hardship and mechanically directed deposit of 20% of the amount. It is further contended that the petitioner thereafter moved an application seeking dispensing with the ATUL KUMAR TRIPATHI 2026.09.02 17:11 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-48260-2026 (O&M) -3- condition of deposit of 20% of the amount under Section 148 of the NI Act, particularly in view of the exceptional circumstances pleaded by him, including the serious eye problem suffered by his wife for which she is undergoing treatment. However, the said application was dismissed vide order dated 11.08.2026 without properly considering the circumstances pleaded by the petitioner. 5. While referring to the principles of law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in a case of ‘Jamboo Bhandari Vs. M.P. State Industrial Development Corporation Ltd. and others’, 2023(10) SCC 446, learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the learned Appellate Court was required to consider the circumstances of the petitioner before imposing the condition of deposit and, in an appropriate case, could waive or reduce the requirement of deposit by recording reasons. According to learned counsel for the petitioner, the impugned orders having been passed without proper consideration of the circumstances pleaded by the petitioner, the matter deserves to be remanded to the learned Appellate Court for fresh consideration. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the record carefully. 7. A perusal of the record shows that the cheque in question was for an amount of Rs.12,00,000/- and the learned trial Court, vide judgment dated 15.07.2026, awarded compensation of Rs.12,00,000/- along with a fine of Rs.1,000/- and sentenced the petitioner to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year. The learned Appellate Court, while suspending the sentence, directed the petitioner to deposit 20% of the amount imposed upon him. The record further shows that the petitioner thereafter moved an application seeking dispensing with the said condition, pleading financial ATUL KUMAR TRIPATHI 2026.09.02 17:11 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-48260-2026 (O&M) -4- difficulty, inter alia, on account of serious eye ailment of his wife and the expenditure being incurred on her treatment. The said application, however, came to be dismissed vide order dated 11.08.2026 by observing that no sufficient ground or exceptional circumstance had been mentioned for grant of exemption. 8. Section 148 of the NI Act undoubtedly empowers the Appellate Court to direct an appellant, convicted under Section 138 of the NI Act, to deposit a minimum of 20% of the fine or compensation awarded by the trial Court. However, as expounded by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Jamboo Bhandari’s case (supra) though such deposit is ordinarily to be directed, the requirement is not to be applied mechanically in every case. Where exceptional circumstances are pleaded, the Appellate Court is required to consider the same and, if a case for departure from the normal rule is made out, may waive or suitably reduce the amount of deposit by recording reasons. 9. In the present case, the grievance of the petitioner is not merely that the condition of deposit has been imposed, but that the circumstances specifically pleaded by him in support of his prayer for exemption have not been meaningfully considered. The order dated 11.08.2026 does not reflect any consideration as to whether the medical condition of the petitioner's wife, the treatment being undertaken by her and the consequential financial burden constituted circumstances warranting relaxation of the condition. A mere conclusion that no exceptional circumstance exists, without examining the material and reasons put forth in support thereof, cannot be regarded as sufficient consideration in terms of the principles laid down in Jamboo Bhandari's case (supra). 10. At the same time, it would not be appropriate for this Court, in exercise of jurisdiction under Section 528 of the BNSS, to undertake the said ATUL KUMAR TRIPATHI 2026.09.02 17:11 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-48260-2026 (O&M) -5- exercise for the first time and determine the quantum, if any, which the petitioner should be required to deposit. The appropriate course would be to remit the matter to the learned Appellate Court so that the petitioner's prayer is considered afresh on its own merits, keeping in view the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and the circumstances and material placed before it. 11. Accordingly, without issuing notice to the respondent(s), lest it may unnecessarily delay the proceedings, the present petition is disposed of. The impugned order dated 11.08.2026, to the extent it rejects the petitioner's prayer for dispensing with/reduction of the deposit under Section 148 of the NI Act, is set aside. Consequently, the condition regarding deposit contained in the order dated 30.07.2026 shall remain subject to the fresh decision to be taken by the learned Appellate Court. The learned Appellate Court is directed to reconsider the petitioner's application and pass a fresh speaking order, in accordance with law and in the light of the principles laid down in Jamboo Bhandari's case (supra), after taking into consideration the circumstances pleaded and the material produced by the petitioner. 12. Till such fresh decision is taken by the learned Appellate Court, the suspension of sentence already granted to the petitioner shall remain operative, subject to compliance with the other conditions imposed upon him. 13. Since the present order has been passed without notice to the respondent(s), they shall be at liberty to approach this Court in case they feel aggrieved by the same. 14. Application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of accordingly. (NEERJA K. KALSON) JUDGE 27.08.2026 Atul 1. Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No 2. Whether reportable Yes/No ATUL KUMAR TRIPATHI 2026.09.02 17:11 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document