CRM-M-22773 145 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA Charanjit Kaur Harjit Kaur CORAM : HON’BLE Present: Ms for the petitioner. *** SUDEEPTI SHARMA, J. 1. The present petition has been filed under Section Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) passed in case bearing CRA No. 89 Kaur vs. State of Punjab and etc” deposit 20% of the cheque amount before the learned trial Court/Duty Magistrate within one month from the date of passing of the order. 2. Brief facts of the case are that the complaint under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act complaint bearing No. First Class Kapurthala, wherein it is stated that the petitioner took a friendly loan of Rs. 20,00,000/ and in order to discharge part of his legal liability, the petitioner issued cheque No.00030 dated 31.07.2023 for a sum of Rs. 6,50,000/ 22773-2025 (O&M) IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM Date of Decision : VERSUS HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE SUDEEPTI SHARMA s. Mehak Bedi, Advocate for Mr. Vivek K. Thakur, Advocate for the petitioner. *** SUDEEPTI SHARMA, J. (Oral) The present petition has been filed under Section Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) 2023 for quashing passed in case bearing CRA No. 89-2025 dated 19.04.2025 titled as Kaur vs. State of Punjab and etc”, to the extent that the petitioner is directed to deposit 20% of the cheque amount before the learned trial Court/Duty Magistrate within one month from the date of passing of the order. rief facts of the case are that the complaint under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act complaint bearing No. NACT/652/2023, before the First Class Kapurthala, wherein it is stated that the petitioner took a friendly loan of Rs. 20,00,000/- from the complainant on different intervals for his personal need and in order to discharge part of his legal liability, the petitioner issued cheque o.00030 dated 31.07.2023 for a sum of Rs. 6,50,000/ -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM-M-22773-2025 (O&M) Date of Decision : 30.04.2025 ....Petitioner ....Respondent SUDEEPTI SHARMA for Mr. Vivek K. Thakur, Advocate The present petition has been filed under Section 528 of Bharatiya quashing of order dated 21.04.2025 2025 dated 19.04.2025 titled as “Charanjit o the extent that the petitioner is directed to deposit 20% of the cheque amount before the learned trial Court/Duty Magistrate within one month from the date of passing of the order. rief facts of the case are that the respondent-Harjit Kaur filed a complaint under section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1887 vide NACT/652/2023, before the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class Kapurthala, wherein it is stated that the petitioner took a friendly loan rom the complainant on different intervals for his personal need and in order to discharge part of his legal liability, the petitioner issued cheque o.00030 dated 31.07.2023 for a sum of Rs. 6,50,000/- in favour of the ....Respondent Bharatiya order dated 21.04.2025 “Charanjit o the extent that the petitioner is directed to deposit 20% of the cheque amount before the learned trial Court/Duty Magistrate, Harjit Kaur filed a vide Judicial Magistrate First Class Kapurthala, wherein it is stated that the petitioner took a friendly loan rom the complainant on different intervals for his personal need and in order to discharge part of his legal liability, the petitioner issued cheque in favour of the Gaurav Arora 2025.05.09 13:05 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-22773 complainant drawn at Punjab and Sind Kapurthala. Thereafter her banker, it was received back unpaid remarks "kindly Contact Drawer" dated 17.08.2023 upon the present petitioner through registered post for payment of the above-said cheque amount within 15 days from the receipt of the notice but despite service of legal notice, the cheque amount. 3. The petitioner was summoned to face trial and Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Kapurthala sentenced the petitioner to years rigorous imprisonment for offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1887 19.04.2025 against the said judgment of conviction 28.03.2025 along with an application under Section Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) the tune of cheque amount. admitting the appeal of the petitioner directed h amount with the 4. Learned cou Addl. Sessions Judge, Kapurthala cheque amount without assigning any reason, which is in violation of law laid down by Hon’ble the Supreme Court of India in a case vs. M.P. State Industrial Development Corporation Ltd. and others, 2023 (10) SCC 446. 22773-2025 (O&M) complainant drawn at Punjab and Sind Bank, Branch Ibrahimwal, District hereafter, when the complainant present her banker, it was received back unpaid, vide memo dated 12.09.2022 remarks "kindly Contact Drawer". Thereafter complainant served legal dated 17.08.2023 upon the present petitioner through registered post for payment said cheque amount within 15 days from the receipt of the notice but despite service of legal notice, the petitioner failed to make the payment of the ue amount. The petitioner was summoned to face trial and Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Kapurthala sentenced the petitioner to years rigorous imprisonment for offence punishable under Section 138 of the nstruments Act, 1887. The petitioner preferred an appeal against the said judgment of conviction along with an application under Section Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) 2023 for suspension of sentence and compensation to the tune of cheque amount. The learned Addl. admitting the appeal of the petitioner directed h amount with the trial Court. Learned counsel for the petitioner Addl. Sessions Judge, Kapurthala imposed the condition cheque amount without assigning any reason, which is in violation of law laid Hon’ble the Supreme Court of India in a case vs. M.P. State Industrial Development Corporation Ltd. and others, 2023 (10) -2- Bank, Branch Ibrahimwal, District when the complainant presented the aforesaid cheque to , vide memo dated 12.09.2022 with ereafter complainant served legal notice dated 17.08.2023 upon the present petitioner through registered post for payment said cheque amount within 15 days from the receipt of the notice but failed to make the payment of the The petitioner was summoned to face trial and thereafter, the learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Kapurthala sentenced the petitioner to undergo two years rigorous imprisonment for offence punishable under Section 138 of the The petitioner preferred an appeal dated against the said judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated along with an application under Section 430 of Bharatiya Nagarik 2023 for suspension of sentence and compensation to Addl. Sessions Judge, Kapurthala while admitting the appeal of the petitioner directed her to deposit 20% of the cheque nsel for the petitioner inter alia contends that the learned imposed the condition to deposit 20% of the cheque amount without assigning any reason, which is in violation of law laid Hon’ble the Supreme Court of India in a case titled as ‘Jamboo Bhandari vs. M.P. State Industrial Development Corporation Ltd. and others, 2023 (10) Bank, Branch Ibrahimwal, District the aforesaid cheque to with notice dated 17.08.2023 upon the present petitioner through registered post for payment said cheque amount within 15 days from the receipt of the notice but failed to make the payment of the the learned two years rigorous imprisonment for offence punishable under Section 138 of the dated dated Bharatiya Nagarik 2023 for suspension of sentence and compensation to while to deposit 20% of the cheque learned deposit 20% of the cheque amount without assigning any reason, which is in violation of law laid Jamboo Bhandari vs. M.P. State Industrial Development Corporation Ltd. and others, 2023 (10) Gaurav Arora 2025.05.09 13:05 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-22773 5. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the 6. In observed as under: “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 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 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 conclusion must be recorded.” 7. In Sessions Judge, Kapurthala petitioner falls within the exception or not the condition for 22773-2025 (O&M) I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the In Jamboo Bhandari’s case (supra) under:- “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 eposit 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 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 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 conclusion must be recorded.” n view of the above referred to judgment, the learned Sessions Judge, Kapurthala was required to consider as to whether the case of the petitioner falls within the exception or not and accordingly, for depositing 20% of the cheque amount -3- I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the file. case (supra), Hon’ble the Supreme Court “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 eposit 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 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 view of the above referred to judgment, the learned Additional was required to consider as to whether the case of the and accordingly, it should have imposed depositing 20% of the cheque amount. , Hon’ble the Supreme Court Additional was required to consider as to whether the case of the it should have imposed Gaurav Arora 2025.05.09 13:05 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-22773 8. In view of the aforesaid facts and after perusing the judgment passed by Hon’ble the Supreme Court in order dated 21.04.2025 pas titled as “Charanjit Kaur vs. State of Punjab and etc” 20% of the cheque amount before the 9. The matter is remanded back to the learned Kapurthala, with a direction to decide the matter afres laid down in the aforesaid judgment passed by the Hon’ble Apex Court granting an opportunity to the petitioner 10. The petition stands dis April 30, 2025 Gaurav Arora Whether speaking/non Whether reportable 22773-2025 (O&M) In view of the aforesaid facts and after perusing the judgment passed by Hon’ble the Supreme Court in Jamboo Bhandari’s case (supra) order dated 21.04.2025 passed in case bearing CRA No. 89 “Charanjit Kaur vs. State of Punjab and etc” 20% of the cheque amount before the Court, is set aside The matter is remanded back to the learned with a direction to decide the matter afres laid down in the aforesaid judgment passed by the Hon’ble Apex Court granting an opportunity to the petitioner. The petition stands disposed of accordingly. (SUDEEPTI SHARMA) Whether speaking/non-speaking : Speaking Whether reportable : Yes/No -4- In view of the aforesaid facts and after perusing the judgment passed Jamboo Bhandari’s case (supra), the impugned sed in case bearing CRA No. 89-2025 dated 19.04.2025 “Charanjit Kaur vs. State of Punjab and etc”, to the extent to deposit Court, is set aside. The matter is remanded back to the learned Addl. Sessions Judge, with a direction to decide the matter afresh, in accordance with the law laid down in the aforesaid judgment passed by the Hon’ble Apex Court, after posed of accordingly. (SUDEEPTI SHARMA) JUDGE speaking : Speaking : Yes/No In view of the aforesaid facts and after perusing the judgment passed the impugned 2025 dated 19.04.2025 deposit Addl. Sessions Judge, in accordance with the law after Gaurav Arora 2025.05.09 13:05 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document