CRM-M-49658 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT 270 KARAMJIT KAUR STATE OF PUNJAB CORAM: HON Present : AMAN CHAUDHARY, J. (ORAL) 1. (Section 482 of Cr.P.C) for quashing of orders dated 21.02.2024 and 19.03.2024 passed in criminal appeal No. CRA/49/2024 titled “Karamjit Kaur V. Shamsher Singh” at Amritsar in complaint case No. NACT/3111/2019 titled as “Shamsher Singh V 2. about 50 years, but she was directed to deposit 20% of the compensation amount. imposition of such stringent and onerous condition is unjust. He prays that the same is liable to be quashed on account of and poor financial status which has affected h 49658-2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM Date of decision KARAMJIT KAUR Versus STATE OF PUNJAB CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE AMAN CHAUDHARY Mr. Atinderpal Singh, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. Jasjit Singh, DAG, Punjab. AMAN CHAUDHARY, J. (ORAL) This petition has been filed under Se (Section 482 of Cr.P.C) for quashing of orders dated 21.02.2024 and 19.03.2024 passed in criminal appeal No. CRA/49/2024 titled “Karamjit Kaur V. Shamsher Singh” at Amritsar in complaint case No. NACT/3111/2019 titled as “Shamsher Singh V Learned counsel submits that sentence of the petitioner about 50 years, was suspended, vide the aforesaid order he was directed to deposit 20% of the compensation amount. imposition of such stringent and onerous condition is unjust. He prays that the same is liable to be quashed on account of and poor financial status which has affected h -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM-M-49658-2024 (O & M) Date of decision: 25.09.2025 ....Petitioner ...Respondent BLE MR. JUSTICE AMAN CHAUDHARY Advocate, Mr. Jasjit Singh, DAG, Punjab. This petition has been filed under Section 528 of BNSS (Section 482 of Cr.P.C) for quashing of orders dated 21.02.2024 and 19.03.2024 passed in criminal appeal No. CRA/49/2024 titled “Karamjit Kaur V. Shamsher Singh” at Amritsar in complaint case No. NACT/3111/2019 titled as “Shamsher Singh V. Karamjit Kaur” Amritsar. Learned counsel submits that sentence of the petitioner, aged was suspended, vide the aforesaid order dated 21.02.2024, he was directed to deposit 20% of the compensation amount. The imposition of such stringent and onerous condition is unjust. He prays that the same is liable to be quashed on account of her family exigencies and poor financial status which has affected her mental health. PARVEEN KUMAR 2025.09.26 18:17 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment. -2- CRM-M-49658-2024 3. Heard. 4. Reference is made to the judgment of Hon’ble the Supreme Court in Jamboo Bhandari vs. MP State Industrial Development Corporation Ltd. 2023(10) SCC 446, the relevant paras whereof reads thus: “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 be made for 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 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 conclusion must be recorded.” 5. In Muskan Enterprises and another vs. State of Punjab 2024 SCConline SC 4107, Hon’ble the Supreme Court remitted the matter to the Sessions Court to re-examine the issue of ordering deposit by observing that, “Whether sufficient ground has been made out by the appellants to persuade the Sessions Court not to order any deposit is left entirely to its discretion and satisfaction. We do not express any opinion PARVEEN KUMAR 2025.09.26 18:17 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment. -3- CRM-M-49658-2024 on the plea that the appellants have sought to advance before us, lest any party seeks to derive any advantage. All points are left open.” 6. In light of the aforesaid, the condition imposed to deposit 20% of compensation amount in the order dated 21.02.2024 is set aside. The learned Appellate Court to reconsider the matter afresh, as per the observations made in the aforesaid judgments, granting an opportunity to the petitioner. 7. Till the decision is taken, interim order dated 05.11.2024 passed by this Court to continue. The petitioner is directed to appear through her counsel before the learned Appellate Court on or before 14.10.2025, failing which, this order shall stand vacated automatically. 8. Disposed of accordingly. 25.09.2025 (AMAN CHAUDHARY) parveen kumar JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes / No Whether reportable : Yes / No PARVEEN KUMAR 2025.09.26 18:17 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment.