Date Charanjit Kaur v. Harjit Kaur ndent
Case Details
CRM-M-22773 2773-2025 (O&M) -1- 145 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJA IN TH AT CHANDIGAR UNJAB AND HARYANA IGARH CRM-M-22773-2025 (O&M) CRM Date of Decision : 30.04.2025 Date Charanjit Kaur ....Petitioner VERSUS Harjit Kaur ndent ....Respondent CORAM : HON HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE SUDE SUDEEPTI SHARMA Present: Ms s. Mehak Bedi, Advocate for Mr. r Mr. Vivek K. Thakur, Advocate for the petitioner. for th *** *** SUDEEPTI SHA I SHARMA, J. (Oral) 1. The present petition has been filed The filed under Section 528 of Bharatiy haratiya Nagarik Suraksha raksha Sanhita (BNSS) 2023 for qua quashing of order dated 21.04.202 04.2025 passed in case be ase bearing CRA No. 89-2025 dated dated 19.04.2025 titled as “Charan aranjit Kaur vs. State of te of Punjab and etc”, to the exten extent that the petitioner is directed ected to deposit 20% of th of the cheque amount before the lea
Legal Reasoning
the learned trial Court/Duty Magistrat gistrate, within one month month from the date of passing of the of the order. 2. Brief rief facts of the case are that the hat the respondent-Harjit Kaur filed filed a complaint under under section 138 of the Negotiab egotiable Instruments Act, 1887 vid vide complaint bearin bearing No. NACT/652/2023, before before the learned Judicial Magistra agistrate First Class Kapur Kapurthala, wherein it is stated that t that the petitioner took a friendly loa dly loan of Rs. 20,00,000/ 0,000/- from the complainant on differ different intervals for his personal nee nal need and in order to d er to discharge part of his legal liabi l liability, the petitioner issued chequ cheque No.00030 dated dated 31.07.2023 for a sum of R of Rs. 6,50,000/- in favour of th of the Gaurav Arora 2025.05.09 13:05 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-22773 2773-2025 (O&M) -2- complainant draw t drawn at Punjab and Sind Ban Bank, Branch Ibrahimwal, Distri District Kapurthala. Ther hereafter, when the complainant p nant presented the aforesaid cheque eque to her banker, it w , it was received back unpaid, vid , vide memo dated 12.09.2022 wi with remarks "kindly indly Contact Drawer". Thereafter after complainant served legal notic notice dated 17.08.2023 .2023 upon the present petitioner thr er through registered post for payme payment of the above-said said cheque amount within 15 days days from the receipt of the notice b tice but despite service o vice of legal notice, the petitioner fa failed to make the payment of th t of the unt. cheque amount. 3. The petitioner was summoned to fac The to face trial and thereafter, the learne learned Judicial Magistra agistrate Ist Class, Kapurthala sentenc entenced the petitioner to undergo tw two years rigorous im ous imprisonment for offence punis punishable under Section 138 of th of the Negotiable Instru nstruments Act, 1887. The petiti petitioner preferred an appeal date dated 19.04.2025 again against the said judgment of convic conviction and order of sentence date dated 28.03.2025 along along with an application under Se er Section 430 of Bharatiya Nagar Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita anhita (BNSS) 2023 for suspension nsion of sentence and compensation ation to the tune of chequ cheque amount. The learned Addl. ddl. Sessions Judge, Kapurthala whi while admitting the app he appeal of the petitioner directed h cted her to deposit 20% of the chequ cheque amount with the h the trial Court. 4.
Legal Reasoning
Learned counsel for the petitioner Lear oner inter alia contends that the learne learned Addl. Sessions J ions Judge, Kapurthala imposed the d the condition to deposit 20% of th of the cheque amount w ount without assigning any reason, w son, which is in violation of law la law laid down by Hon’ble on’ble the Supreme Court of India in a ia in a case titled as ‘Jamboo Bhanda andari vs. M.P. State In te Industrial Development Corpora rporation Ltd. and others, 2023 (1 3 (10) SCC 446. Gaurav Arora 2025.05.09 13:05 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-22773 2773-2025 (O&M) -3- 5. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the p I hav or the petitioner and perused the file. In Jamboo Bhandari’s case (supr In (supra), Hon’ble the Supreme Cou e Court observed as under under:- “6. Wh . What is held by this Court is tha s that a purposive interpretation should uld be made of Section 148 of the f the N.I. Act. Hence, normally, Appella pellate Court will be justified in in imposing the condition of deposit osit as provided in Section 148. H 8. However, in a case where the Appella pellate Court is satisfied that the con e condition of deposit of 20% will be unju unjust or imposing such a condition ition will amount to deprivation of the r the right of appeal of the appellant llant, exception can be made for the rea reasons specifically recorded. 7. Ther Therefore, when Appellate Court urt considers the prayer under Section tion 389 of the Cr.P.C. of an accus ccused, who has been convicted for offe offence under Section 138 of the N he N.I. Act, it is always open for the App Appellate Court to consider wheth hether it is an exceptional case which w ich warrants grant of suspension o on of sentence without imposing the con condition of deposit of 20% of the f the fine/compensation amount. As stat stated earlier, if the Appellate Co Court comes to the conclusion that it t it is an exceptional case, the rea reasons for coming to the said conclus clusion must be recorded.” 7. n view of the above referred to j In d to judgment, the learned Addition ditional Sessions Judge, K dge, Kapurthala was required to cons o consider as to whether the case of th e of the petitioner falls wi alls within the exception or not and ac and accordingly, it should have impose imposed the condition for for depositing 20% of the cheque am que amount. Gaurav Arora 2025.05.09 13:05 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CRM-M-22773 2773-2025 (O&M) -4- 8. In view of the aforesaid facts and af In vi and after perusing the judgment passe t passed by Hon’ble the Su the Supreme Court in Jamboo Bhand Bhandari’s case (supra), the impugne pugned order dated 21.04 21.04.2025 passed in case bearing CR ing CRA No. 89-2025 dated 19.04.202 04.2025 titled as “Charan aranjit Kaur vs. State of Punjab a jab and etc”, to the extent to depos deposit 20% of the chequ cheque amount before the Court, is se t, is set aside. 9. The matter is remanded back to th The to the learned Addl. Sessions Judg s Judge, Kapurthala, with with a direction to decide the matter a atter afresh, in accordance with the la the law laid down in the in the aforesaid judgment passed by sed by the Hon’ble Apex Court, aft after granting an oppor opportunity to the petitioner. 10.
Decision
The petition stands disposed of accor The f accordingly. April 30, 2025 Gaurav Arora (SU (SUDEEPTI SHARMA) JUDGE Whether Whether ether speaking/non-speaking : Speakin peaking Yes/No : Yes/N ether reportable Gaurav Arora 2025.05.09 13:05 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document