RAJNI BALA Vs. SANTOSH KUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a petition filed under Sec. 482 of Cr.P.C. for quashing the impugned order dtd. 25/2/2020 (Annexure P-3) passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Kapurthala in CRA-47-2020 arising out of complaint bearing NACT-6-2018 dtd. 6/2/2018 registered under Sec. 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (hereinafter to be referred as "the Act of 1881") titled as "Santosh Kumar Vs. Rajni Bala" whereby the petitioner was directed to deposit 20% of the compensation amount in view of Sec. 148(1) of the Act of 1881.

(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the impugned order is bad inasmuch as the petitioner is a poor lady and is not in a position to pay the said money.This Court has heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and has perused the paper book.

(3.) The complaint under Sec. 138 of the Act of 1881 was filed by Santosh Kumar-complainant against the present petitioner on the allegations that the loan amounting to Rs.2,50,000.00 was taken by the present petitioner and to discharge the said loan, cheque No.635759 dtd. 29/11/2017 of an amount of Rs.2,50,000.00 was issued by the petitioner drawn over Dena Bank, Kapurthala from her account in favour of the complainant. The said cheque was dishonoured on account of "funds insufficient" and thereafter, the legal notice was served. Since, money is not paid, thus, complaint under Sec. 138 of the Act of 1881 was filed. The Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class, Kapurthala, after considering the entire material on record, had convicted and sentenced the present petitioner under Sec. 138 of the Act of 1881 for a period of one year rigorous imprisonment and further directed the petitioner to pay compensation to the tune of Rs.2,50,000.00 to the complainant. Thereafter, the petitioner had filed an appeal and vide order dtd. 25/2/2020, the said appeal was admitted and an application under Sec. 389 of Cr.P.C. was also filed alongwith the appeal seeking suspension of sentence and the same was also granted to the petitioner. Further, direction was given to the petitioner to deposit 20% of the compensation amount in view of Sec. 148(1) of the Act of 1881. The said direction is in consonance with the power of the Appellate Court under Sec. 148 of the Act of 1881. Sec. 148 of the Act of 1881 is reproduced hereinbelow:-