IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA 130 M/S SHEELA HEAT TREATMENT AND ANOTHER HANS RAJ CORAM: HON’BLE MRS. Present : Mr MANISHA BATRA 1. The instant petition has been filed by the petitioner seeking quashing of order Judge, Faridabad passed in CRA/245/2025 titled Anr. vs. Hans Raj, 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 the 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 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: M/S SHEELA HEAT TREATMENT AND ANOTHER Versus HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE MANISHA BATRA Mr. Gaurav Gupta, Advocate for the petitioner **** MANISHA BATRA, J. (oral) The instant petition has been filed by the petitioner seeking quashing of order dated 08.04.2025 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Faridabad passed in CRA/245/2025 titled Anr. vs. Hans Raj, 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 the 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 appellate Court is 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.29786 of 2025 Date of decision: 28.05.2025 M/S SHEELA HEAT TREATMENT AND ANOTHER …. Petitioners …. Respondent MANISHA BATRA , Advocate for the petitioners. The instant petition has been filed by the petitioner seeking dated 08.04.2025 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Faridabad passed in CRA/245/2025 titled M/s Sheel Heat Treatment & , 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 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 08.04.2025 passed by learned Additional Sessions M/s Sheel Heat Treatment & , while deciding the application filed by the osit 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 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 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 counse 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 sentence dated 12.03.2025 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 perio compensation to the the order passed by the trial Court by filing aforesaid appeal before the learned appellate Court and the appellate Court, vide order dat 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 CRM-M No.29786 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 05.03.2025 and order on quantum of dated 12.03.2025, 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 simple imprisonment for a period one year, had also directed him to pay compensation to the tune amount i.e. `30,60,,000/ the order passed by the trial Court by filing aforesaid appeal before the learned appellate Court and the appellate Court, vide order dat suspended the sentence of petitioner and had directed 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 M No.29786 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. l 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 05.03.2025 and order on quantum of , 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 , had also directed him to pay 30,60,,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 08.04.2025, and had directed 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 - , Vikram Singh and another vs. Nasar and Sahil Puri vs. l for the petitioner at considerable On a perusal of the record, it is revealed that the learned trial 05.03.2025 and order on quantum of , 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 , had also directed him to pay . The petitioner challenged the order passed by the trial Court by filing aforesaid appeal before the learned , and had directed 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 Jyoti 2025.05.29 15:06 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM Benches of this Court in 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 28.05.2025 Jyoti-IV CRM-M No.29786 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 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 08.04.2025 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 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.29786 of 2025 -3- case (supra) as well as afore cited 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 08.04.2025 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 (supra) as well as afore cited 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 2025.05.29 15:06 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document