IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA 136 GURJINDER SINGH AND ANOTHER VINAY SETIA @ VINAY KUMAR SETIA CORAM: HON’BLE MRS. Present : Mr MANISHA BATRA 1. The instant petition has been filed by the petitioner seeking quashing of order passed in CRA No.25 of 2025 titled Setia, whereby petitioner had been directed to respondent. 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 compensation amount was not absolute requirement for suspension 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 asi judgments passed by the co Kuldeep Singh, CRM IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM-M Date of decision: GURJINDER SINGH AND ANOTHER Versus VINAY SETIA @ VINAY KUMAR SETIA HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE MANISHA BATRA Mr. Vikas Kumar, Advocate for the petitioner **** MANISHA BATRA, J. (oral) The instant petition has been filed by the petitioner seeking quashing of order dated 10.01.2025 passed by learned Sessions Judge, Fazilka passed in CRA No.25 of 2025 titled Gurjinder Singh and another vs Vinay whereby, while deciding the application filed by the respondent, the petitioner had been directed to deposit 20% of t 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 compensation amount was not absolute requirement for suspension 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 Kuldeep Singh, CRM-M-3878-2024, decided on 24.01.2024, IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH M No.18154 of 2025 Date of decision: 04.04.2025 …. Petitioners …. Respondent MANISHA BATRA , Advocate for the petitioners. The instant petition has been filed by the petitioner seeking dated 10.01.2025 passed by learned Sessions Judge, Fazilka Gurjinder Singh and another vs Vinay , while deciding the application filed by the respondent, the deposit 20% of the compensation amount to the 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 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 de. To fortify his argument, he has placed reliance upon the ordinate Benches of this Court in Abdul Rashid vs. , decided on 24.01.2024, Sarif The instant petition has been filed by the petitioner seeking dated 10.01.2025 passed by learned Sessions Judge, Fazilka Gurjinder Singh and another vs Vinay , while deciding the application filed by the respondent, the to the 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, it of 20% of 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 de. To fortify his argument, he has placed reliance upon the Abdul Rashid vs. Sarif Jyoti 2025.04.05 14:21 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM Mohammad @ Sareef Mohammad vs. Swaran Singh 20840-2024, decided on 26.04.2024 and another, CRM Sonu Kumar and another, CRM 3. I have heard learned counsel for the pet length and have also gone through the material placed on record 4. On a perusal of the record, it is revealed that the learned trial Court, vide judgment of conviction 12.12.2024, passed in a with Section 420 of IPC offence punishable under the aforementioned section and apart from awarding sentence to undergo simple imprisonment for a period directed him to pay compensation to the petitioner challenged the order passed by the trial Court by filing aforesaid appeal before the learned appellate Court and the appellate Court, vide order dated 10.01.2025 petitioner to deposit a period of 60 days 5. In Corporation Ltd. And others : (2024) 1 SCC (Cri) 90 Hon’ble Supreme Court that de 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 appea CRM-M No.18154 of 2025 Mohammad @ Sareef Mohammad vs. Swaran Singh decided on 26.04.2024, Vikram Singh and another vs. Nasar and another, CRM-M-6508-2024, decided on 08.02.2024 Sonu Kumar and another, CRM-M-2503-2024, I have heard learned counsel for the pet length and have also gone through the material placed on record On a perusal of the record, it is revealed that the learned trial Court, vide judgment of conviction and order on quantum of sentence .2024, passed in a complaint filed under Section 138 of with Section 420 of IPC, 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 directed him to pay compensation to the tune amount i.e. petitioner challenged the order passed by the trial Court by filing aforesaid appeal before the learned appellate Court and the appellate Court, vide order 10.01.2025, suspended the sentence of petitioner tioner to deposit 20% of the compensation amount a period of 60 days. In Jamboo Bhandari vs. M. P. State Industrial Development Corporation Ltd. And others : (2024) 1 SCC (Cri) 90 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 appea M No.18154 of 2025 -2- Mohammad @ Sareef Mohammad vs. Swaran Singh and another, CRM-M- , Vikram Singh and another vs. Nasar decided on 08.02.2024 and Sahil Puri vs. 2024, decided on 18.01.2024. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner at considerable length and have also gone through the material placed on record. On a perusal of the record, it is revealed that the learned trial and order on quantum of sentence dated complaint filed under Section 138 of N. I. Act read , 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 one year, had also tune amount i.e. `2,50,000/-. The petitioner challenged the order passed by the trial Court by filing aforesaid appeal before the learned appellate Court and the appellate Court, vide order , suspended the sentence of petitioner and had directed to the 20% of the compensation amount to the respondent within Jamboo Bhandari vs. M. P. State Industrial Development Corporation Ltd. And others : (2024) 1 SCC (Cri) 90, it was observed posit 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. - , Vikram Singh and another vs. Nasar and Sahil Puri vs. itioner at considerable On a perusal of the record, it is revealed that the learned trial dated read , had held the petitioner guilty for commission of offence punishable under the aforementioned section and apart from awarding , had also . The petitioner challenged the order passed by the trial Court by filing aforesaid appeal before the learned appellate Court and the appellate Court, vide order and had directed to the within Jamboo Bhandari vs. M. P. State Industrial Development , it was observed posit 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 l of the appellant. Jyoti 2025.04.05 14:21 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM This proposition of law is shown to have been followed by the co Benches of this Court in 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 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 warranti sentence without imposing condition of deposit of 20% of compensation amount/fine, the impugned order dated sustainable to the extent to which the condition of deposit of 20% of the compensation a extent. The matter is remanded to learned appellate Court for deciding the same afresh after re petitioner to make submissions regarding exce warranting waiver of requirement of depositing 20% of the compensation amount in pursuance of judgment passed by Hon’ble Supreme Court in Jamboo Bhandari 04.04.2025 Jyoti-IV CRM-M No.18154 of 2025 This proposition of law is shown to have been followed by the co 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 f 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 warranti sentence without imposing condition of deposit of 20% of compensation amount/fine, the impugned order dated 10.01.2025 sustainable to the extent to which the condition of deposit of 20% of the compensation amount was imposed. Accordingly, the same is set aside to that extent. The matter is remanded to learned appellate Court for deciding the same afresh after re-examining the case by granting an opportunity to the petitioner to make submissions regarding exce warranting waiver of requirement of depositing 20% of the compensation amount in pursuance of judgment passed by Hon’ble Supreme Court in Jamboo Bhandari’s case (supra). The petition stands disposed of. Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No. Whether reportable : Yes/No M No.18154 of 2025 -3- This proposition of law is shown to have been followed by the co-ordinate case (supra) as well as afore cited other similar cases. In the instant case, while imposing condition of deposit of f 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 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 condition of deposit of 20% of compensation 10.01.2025 cannot be stated to be sustainable to the extent to which the condition of deposit of 20% of the mount was imposed. Accordingly, the same is set aside to that extent. The matter is remanded to learned appellate Court for deciding the examining the case by granting an opportunity to the petitioner to make submissions regarding exceptional circumstances warranting waiver of requirement of depositing 20% of the compensation amount in pursuance of judgment passed by Hon’ble Supreme Court in ’s case (supra). The petition stands disposed of. (MANISHA BATRA) JUDGE Yes/No. Yes/No ordinate case (supra) as well as afore cited other similar cases. In the instant case, while imposing condition of deposit of f 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 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 ng grant of suspension of sentence without imposing condition of deposit of 20% of compensation cannot be stated to be sustainable to the extent to which the condition of deposit of 20% of the mount was imposed. Accordingly, the same is set aside to that extent. The matter is remanded to learned appellate Court for deciding the examining the case by granting an opportunity to the ptional circumstances warranting waiver of requirement of depositing 20% of the compensation amount in pursuance of judgment passed by Hon’ble Supreme Court in Jyoti 2025.04.05 14:21 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document