CRM (M) No. 631/2025 101 supp IN THE HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH AT SRINAGAR CRM (M) No. 631/2025 CrlM No. 1556/2025 Date of pronouncement: 29.10.2025 Uploaded on : 29.10.2025 Mohammad Shafi Bhat ….. Petitioner (s) Through: Mr. T A Lone, Adv. V/s Sajad Ahmad Mir ….. Respondent(s) Through: Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sanjay Dhar, Judge ORDER (ORAL) 29.10.2025 1. The petitioner, through the medium of present petition has challenged complaint filed by respondent against the petitioner alleging commission of offence under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act which is stated to be pending before the court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate Pulwama. 2. Heard and considered. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the cheque which is subject matter of the impugned complaint was taken forcibly by the respondent from the possession of the petitioner thereafter the same was used for filing the impugned CRM (M) No. 631/2025 complaint in a malafide manner, when there was no legally enforceable debt due to the respondent from the petitioner. It has been submitted in this regard that the petitioner has lodged complaint before the Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Chadoora against the complainant. 4. So far as the aforesaid ground urged by the petitioner is concerned, the same is in the nature of defence of the petitioner and it can be looked into at an appropriate stage by the trial Magistrate. At this stage and in these proceedings, this Court cannot hold a mini trial to ascertain the veracity of the aforesaid defence taken by the petitioner. 5. The second ground urged by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the impugned complaint has been filed by the respondent prematurely inasmuch as the respondent has not waited for expiry of 15 days from the date of service of demand notice upon the petitioner. It has been submitted that in fact in the impugned complaint it is nowhere stated as to on what date the demand notice was served upon the petitioner. 6. In the above context, it is to be noted that in para (6) of the impugned complaint the respondent/complainant has specifically averred that he has posted the demand notice on 30.12.2024. The question is as to on what date the said notice has been CRM (M) No. 631/2025 actually been received by the petitioner is a matter of trial. The complainant has presented the complaint on 29th January 2024 before the learned trial court. The merits of the contention of the petitioner that statutory period of 15 days had expired on the date of presentation of the complaint can be determined by the trial court only after the trial of the case. This Court cannot go into such question in these proceedings. 7. It has also been contended that pre-cognizance notice was not issued to the petitioner by the learned trial court. A perusal of order dated 02.05.2025 passed by the learned trial Magistrate would reveal that prior notice was issued to the petitioner before taking cognizance of the offence but the petitioner did not respond to the same. 8. For the foregoing reasons, I do not find merit in this petition. The same is accordingly dismissed. (Sanjay Dhar) Judge SRINAGAR 29.10.2025 Aasif