KANWALJIT SINGH WALIA vs JASKIRAT SINGH AND OTHERS — CRM-M/27571/2026

Disposed: --DISPOSED OF on 15th May 2026.

Case disposed

CNR: PHHC010811412026

Filing Number

CRM-M/37947/2026

Filing Date

11-May-2026

Registration No

CRM-M/27571/2026

Registration Date

13-May-2026

Judge

Mr. Justice Rajesh Bhardwaj

Coram

Mr. Justice Rajesh Bhardwaj

Category

38.29 - QUASHING PET U/S 482 CRPC GEN IN U/S 138 NI ACT ( 649 )

Judicial Branch

CRIMINAL BRANCH

Decision Date

15-May-2026

Nature of Disposal

--DISPOSED OF

Last updated 01-Jun-2026

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.KANWALJIT SINGH WALIA

    Adv. G.S. BRAR

  2. 2.JASKIRAT SINGH

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.JASKIRAT SINGH AND OTHERS

  2. 2.JASKIRAT SINGH

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 15-May-2026

    Mr. Justice Rajesh BhardwajView PDF

    Case Summary: CRM-M/27571/2026 Kanwaljit Singh Walia, convicted under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and ordered to pay Rs. 87.5 lakh compensation, challenged the appellate court's order conditioning sentence suspension on depositing 20% of compensation. The Punjab & Haryana High Court directed the appellate court to expeditiously decide his appeal within 60 days (maximum 90 days), relying on precedent holding that mandatory deposit conditions may deter financially disadvantaged appellants from challenging convictions, thereby undermining legislative intent. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  3. 11-May-2026

    Case filed

    Registration No. CRM-M/27571/2026

casestatus.in Summary

Case Summary: CRM-M/27571/2026 Kanwaljit Singh Walia, convicted under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and ordered to pay Rs. 87.5 lakh compensation, challenged the appellate court's order conditioning sentence suspension on depositing 20% of compensation. The Punjab & Haryana High Court directed the appellate court to expeditiously decide his appeal within 60 days (maximum 90 days), relying on precedent holding that mandatory deposit conditions may deter financially disadvantaged appellants from challenging convictions, thereby undermining legislative intent. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

District Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case