IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA 132 VIPIN KUMAR DUA DARSHAN SINGH AULAKH AND OTHERS CORAM: HON’BLE MRS. Present : Mr MANISHA BATRA 1. The instant petition has been filed by the petitioner seeking quashing of order Judge, SAS Nagar, Mohali passed in CRA No.123 of 2025 titled Dua vs. Darshan Singh Aulakh and Others, application filed by the respondent, the petitioner h 20% of the compensation amount 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, fa 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 app liable to be set aside. To fortify his argument, he has placed reliance upon the judgments passed by the co Kuldeep Singh, CRM IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM-M Date of decision: VIPIN KUMAR DUA Versus DARSHAN SINGH AULAKH AND OTHERS HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE MANISHA Mr. Maninder Arora, Advocate for the petitioner. **** MANISHA BATRA, J. (oral) The instant petition has been filed by the petitioner seeking quashing of order dated 17.03.2025024 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, SAS Nagar, Mohali passed in CRA No.123 of 2025 titled Dua vs. Darshan Singh Aulakh and Others, application filed by the respondent, the petitioner h 20% of the compensation amount to the respondent. 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 app 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.20762 of 2025 Date of decision: 22.04.2025 …. Petitioner Versus DARSHAN SINGH AULAKH AND OTHERS …. Respondents MANISHA BATRA , Advocate for the petitioner. The instant petition has been filed by the petitioner seeking dated 17.03.2025024 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, SAS Nagar, Mohali passed in CRA No.123 of 2025 titled Vipin Kumar Dua vs. Darshan Singh Aulakh and Others, whereby, while deciding the application filed by the respondent, the petitioner had been directed to deposit to the respondent. 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, iled 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 liable to be set aside. 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 17.03.2025024 passed by learned Additional Sessions Kumar , while deciding the deposit 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, deposit of 20% of of sentence and this condition was to be imposed in exceptional circumstances. ellate Court is liable to be set aside. To fortify his argument, he has placed reliance upon the Abdul Rashid vs. Sarif Jyoti 2025.04.23 16:26 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM Mohammad @ Sareef Mo 20840-2024, decided on 26.04.2024 and another, CRM Sonu Kumar and another, CRM 3. I ha 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 dated filed under Section 138 of commission of offence punishable under the aforementioned section and apart from awarding sentence to undergo simple imprisonment for a period had also directed him to pay compensation to the `12,00,000/-. 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 dated petitioner subject to his furnishing bail bonds in the sum of further directed respondent. 5. In 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 suc condition will amount to deprivation of the right of appeal of the appellant. CRM-M No.20762 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 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 Court, vide judgment of conviction dated 17.02. filed under Section 138 of N. I. Act, 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 had also directed him to pay compensation to the 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 17.03.2025 while suspending the sentence of the petitioner subject to his furnishing bail bonds in the sum of directed him to deposit 20% of the compensation amount In Jamboo Bhandari vs. M. P. State Industrial Devel 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 appeal of the appellant. M No.20762 of 2025 -2- hammad 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. ve 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 17.02.2025, passed in a complaint N. I. Act, 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 directed him to pay compensation to the tune amount i.e. The petitioner challenged the order passed by the trial Court by filing aforesaid appeal before the learned appellate Court and the appellate 025 while suspending the sentence of the petitioner subject to his furnishing bail bonds in the sum of `50,000/- had 20% of the compensation amount to the Jamboo Bhandari vs. M. P. State Industrial Development Corporation Ltd. And others : (2024) 1 SCC (Cri) 90, it was observed 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 h 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. ve heard learned counsel for the petitioner at considerable On a perusal of the record, it is revealed that the learned trial n a complaint N. I. Act, had held the petitioner guilty for commission of offence punishable under the aforementioned section and apart , tune amount i.e. The petitioner challenged the order passed by the trial Court by filing aforesaid appeal before the learned appellate Court and the appellate 025 while suspending the sentence of the had to the opment , it was observed 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 h deposit will be unjust or imposing of such a condition will amount to deprivation of the right of appeal of the appellant. Jyoti 2025.04.23 16:26 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 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 C the instant case falls within the exceptions warranting grant of suspension of 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 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 af 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 Jamboo Bhandari 22.04.2025 Jyoti-IV CRM-M No.20762 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 w 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 tional 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 warranting grant of suspension of sentence without imposing condition of deposit of 20% of compensation amount/fine, the impugned order dated 17.03.2025 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 exceptional circumstances warranting waiver of requirement of depositing 20% of the compensation amount in pursuance of judgment passed by Hon’ble Supreme Jamboo Bhandari’s case (supra). The petition stands disposed of. (MANISHA BATRA) Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No. Whether reportable : Yes/No M No.20762 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 20% of compensation amount, the learned appellate Court is not shown to have given any opportunity to the petitioner to make submissions regarding the tional 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 ourt 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 17.03.2025 cannot be stated to be 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 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 ell as afore cited 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 tional 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 ourt 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 be stated to be 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 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 Court in Jyoti 2025.04.23 16:26 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document