IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA 133 MAHESH SHARMA @ MAHESH CHANDRA SHARMA DHEERAJ GARG CORAM: HON’BLE MRS. Present : Ms. Palavi Babbar MANISHA BATRA 1. The instant petition has been filed by the petitioner seeking quashing of order Judge, Narnaul passed in CRA No.176 of 2025 titled Dheeraj Garg, respondent, the petitioner had been directed to 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 consider th 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 Kuldeep Singh, CRM IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM-M Date of decision: MAHESH SHARMA @ MAHESH CHANDRA SHARMA Versus DHEERAJ GARG HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE MANISHA BATRA Ms. Palavi Babbar, Advocate for the petitioner. **** MANISHA BATRA, J. (oral) The instant petition has been filed by the petitioner seeking quashing of order dated 23.04.2025 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Narnaul passed in CRA No.176 of 2025 titled Dheeraj Garg, whereby, while deciding the application filed by the respondent, the petitioner had been directed to 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 th 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 ble 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.29928 of 2025 Date of decision: 28.05.2025 MAHESH SHARMA @ MAHESH CHANDRA SHARMA …. Petitioner …. Respondent MANISHA BATRA , Advocate for the petitioner. The instant petition has been filed by the petitioner seeking dated 23.04.2025 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Narnaul passed in CRA No.176 of 2025 titled Mahesh Sharma vs. , while deciding the application filed by the respondent, the petitioner had been directed to deposit 20% of 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 ble 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 23.04.2025 passed by learned Additional Sessions Mahesh Sharma vs. , while deciding the application filed by the deposit 20% of 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, deposit 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 ble to be set aside. To fortify his argument, he has placed reliance upon the Abdul Rashid vs. Sarif Jyoti 2025.05.29 15:06 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Mohammad @ Sareef Mohammad vs. Swaran S 20840-2024, decided on 26.04.2024 and another, CRM Sonu Kumar and another, CRM 3. I have heard learned co 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 passed in a complaint filed under Section 138 of petitioner guilty for commission of offence punishable under the aforementioned section and apart from awarding sentence to undergo simple imprisonment for a period to the tune amount i.e. by the trial Court by filing aforesaid appeal before the learned appellate Court and the appellate Court, vide order dated of petitioner compensation amount 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 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 CRM-M No.29928 of 2025 Mohammad @ Sareef Mohammad vs. Swaran S 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 quantum of sentence sed in a complaint filed under Section 138 of 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 di tune amount i.e. `4,56,000/-. 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 23.04.2025 and had directed the petitioner to deposit compensation amount to the respondent. 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 ill amount to deprivation of the right of appeal of the appellant. This proposition of law is shown to have been followed by the co M No.29928 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. unsel 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 quantum of sentence dated 24.03.2025, sed 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 simple , had also directed him to pay compensation . The petitioner challenged the order passed by the trial Court by filing aforesaid appeal before the learned appellate Court 23.04.2025, suspended the sentence and had directed the petitioner to deposit 20% of 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 that the condition of such deposit will be unjust or imposing of such a ill 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 - , Vikram Singh and another vs. Nasar and Sahil Puri vs. unsel for the petitioner at considerable On a perusal of the record, it is revealed that the learned trial , 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 rected him to pay compensation . The petitioner challenged the order passed by the trial Court by filing aforesaid appeal before the learned appellate Court the sentence 20% of the 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 ill amount to deprivation of the right of appeal of the appellant. ordinate Jyoti 2025.05.29 15:06 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Benches of this Court in other similar cases. In the instant cas 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 d 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 co 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 28.05.2025 Jyoti-IV CRM-M No.29928 of 2025 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 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 d 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 stant 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 24.03.2025 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 th 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 stan (MANISHA BATRA) Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No. Whether reportable : Yes/No M No.29928 of 2025 -3- case (supra) as well as afore cited e, 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 stant case falls within the exceptions warranting grant of suspension of sentence without imposing condition of deposit of 20% of compensation 24.03.2025 cannot be stated to be ndition 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 (supra) as well as afore cited e, 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 epositing 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 stant 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 ndition 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 e 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 2025.05.29 15:06 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document