IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA 141 M/S INDORA MOBILE COMMUNICATION AND ANOTHER SUDARSHAN KUMAR CORAM: HON’BLE MRS. Present : Mr for the petitioner. MANISHA BATRA 1. The instant petition has been filed by the petitioner seeking quashing of order Judge, Chandigarh passed in CRA/48/2024 titled Communication & Anr. Vs. Sudharshan Kumar, application filed by the respondent, the petitioner had been di 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, failed to co 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 Cou liable to be set aside. To fortify his argument, he has placed reliance upon the judgments passed by the co Kuldeep Singh, CRM Mohammad @ Sareef Mohammad vs. IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM-M Date of decision: M/S INDORA MOBILE COMMUNICATION AND ANOTHER Versus SUDARSHAN KUMAR HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE MANISHA BATRA Mr. Kunal Mulwani and Mr. Ritvik Garg for the petitioner. **** MANISHA BATRA, J. (oral) The instant petition has been filed by the petitioner seeking quashing of order dated 15.04.2024 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Chandigarh passed in CRA/48/2024 titled Communication & Anr. Vs. Sudharshan Kumar, application filed by the respondent, the petitioner had been di 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 appellate Cou 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, Mohammad @ Sareef Mohammad vs. Swaran Singh IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH M No.28525 of 2025 Date of decision: 22.05.2025 M/S INDORA MOBILE COMMUNICATION AND ANOTHER …. Petitioners …. Respondent MANISHA BATRA Kunal Mulwani and Mr. Ritvik Garg, Advocates The instant petition has been filed by the petitioner seeking dated 15.04.2024 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Chandigarh passed in CRA/48/2024 titled M/s Indora Mobile Communication & Anr. Vs. Sudharshan Kumar, 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, nsider 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 Swaran Singh and another, CRM-M- The instant petition has been filed by the petitioner seeking dated 15.04.2024 passed by learned Additional Sessions M/s Indora Mobile , 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. rt is liable to be set aside. To fortify his argument, he has placed reliance upon the Abdul Rashid vs. Sarif - Jyoti 2025.05.23 16:54 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 20840-2024, decided on 26.04.2024 and another, CRM Sonu Kumar and another, CRM 3. I have heard l 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 09.01.2024, passed in a complaint filed under Section 138 of held the petitioner guilty for commission of offence punishable under the aforementioned section and apart from awarding sentence to undergo imprisonment for a period compensation to the order passed by the trial Court by filing aforesaid appeal before the learned appellate Court and the appellate Court, vide order da suspended the sentence of petitioner 20% of the compensation amount 5. In Corporation Ltd. And others : (2024) 1 SCC (Cri) 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 the co Benches of this Court in CRM-M No.28525 of 2025 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 and order on quantum of sentence dat , passed in a complaint filed under Section 138 of held the petitioner guilty for commission of offence punishable under the aforementioned section and apart from awarding sentence to undergo imprisonment for a period of two months, compensation to the tune amount i.e. `2,83,300/ order passed by the trial Court by filing aforesaid appeal before the learned appellate Court and the appellate Court, vide order da suspended the sentence of petitioner had directed to the petitioner to deposit 20% of the compensation amount to the respondent. In Jamboo Bhandari vs. M. P. State Industrial Development Corporation Ltd. And others : (2024) 1 SCC (Cri) 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 n will amount to deprivation of the right of appeal of the appellant. 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 M No.28525 of 2025 -2- , Vikram Singh and another vs. Nasar decided on 08.02.2024 and Sahil Puri vs. 2024, decided on 18.01.2024. earned 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 , passed in a complaint 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 rigorous , and also directed him to pay 2,83,300/-. 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 15.04.2024, had directed to the petitioner to deposit to the respondent. 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 that the condition of such deposit will be unjust or imposing of such a n will amount to deprivation of the right of appeal of the appellant. This proposition of law is shown to have been followed by the co-ordinate case (supra) as well as afore cited , Vikram Singh and another vs. Nasar and Sahil Puri vs. earned counsel for the petitioner at considerable On a perusal of the record, it is revealed that the learned trial ed N. I. Act, had held the petitioner guilty for commission of offence punishable under the rigorous also directed him to pay . The petitioner challenged the order passed by the trial Court by filing aforesaid appeal before the learned , had directed to the petitioner to deposit Jamboo Bhandari vs. M. P. State Industrial Development , 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 that the condition of such deposit will be unjust or imposing of such a n will amount to deprivation of the right of appeal of the appellant. ordinate case (supra) as well as afore cited Jyoti 2025.05.23 16:54 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document other similar cases. In the instant 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 o 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 sustainable to the extent to which 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 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 Jamboo Bhandari 22.05.2025 Jyoti-IV CRM-M No.28525 of 2025 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 o 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 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 15.04.2024 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 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 Jamboo Bhandari’s case (supra). The petition s (MANISHA BATRA) Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No. Whether reportable : Yes/No M No.28525 of 2025 -3- 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 Court was firstly required to consider as to whether instant case falls within the exceptions warranting grant of suspension of sentence without imposing condition of deposit of 20% of compensation 15.04.2024 cannot be stated to be 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 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 f 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 instant case falls within the exceptions warranting grant of suspension of sentence without imposing condition of deposit of 20% of compensation cannot be stated to be 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 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 Jyoti 2025.05.23 16:54 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document