ARJUN WALIA Vs. TARUN BATRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present petition has been preferred by the petitioner, under Sec. 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short 'BNSS') seeking quashing of the impugned order dtd. 4/6/2025 (Annexure P-2) passed by learned Sessions Judge, Nuh, in CRA-66-2025 dtd. 4/6/2025 (complaint NI-2-2017) instituted on 7/1/2017, decided on 9/5/2025), vide which, the petitioner was directed to deposit 20% of the total compensation amount awarded by the learned trial Court.

(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioner has, inter alia, submitted that in a complaint case under Sec. 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (for short, 'NI Act'), instituted at the instance of respondent No.1 - complainant, in respect of dishonour of the cheque in question, the petitioner was released on bail by the trial Court. However, vide judgment and order dated 09/12/5/2025 (Annexure P-1) passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Ferozepur Jhirka, the petitioner was convicted and sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of 10 months and was directed to pay compensation to the tune of Rs.80,00,000.00, and in default thereof, to further undergo simple imprisonment for a period of 03 months. Learned counsel has submitted that the petitioner preferred an appeal against the aforesaid judgment/order, and the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Nuh, vide impugned order dtd. 4/6/2025 (Annexure P2), while admitting the appeal, directed the petitioner to deposit 20% of the compensation amount as a pre-condition for suspension of sentence. Learned counsel has submitted that earlier petition filed by the petitioner was dismissed as withdrawn with liberty to file afresh on the same cause of action after appending further material, including material pertaining to medical condition of the petitioner, vide order dtd. 9/7/2025, passed by this Court.

(3.) On the other hand, learned counsel for respondent No.1 has opposed the grant of the petition in hand by arguing that the allegations against the petitioner are serious in nature, inasmuch as the cheque issued by the petitioner towards discharge of his liability of repayment of the loan amount in question was dishonoured with the remarks "Exceeds Arrangement", and despite repeated demands made by the complainant, the petitioner failed and refused to repay the said amount. Learned counsel has further argued that the impugned order passed by the learned Sessions Judge does not suffer from any illegality, infirmity or perversity and, thus, does not warrant interference by this Court. On the strength of these submissions, dismissal of the petition in hand is entreated for.