Serial No. 25. Regular Cause List. HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH AT SRINAGAR CRM(M) 161/2024 CrlM(412/2024). SHAMAS UD DIN(SENIOR CITIZEN). …Petitioner (s) Through: Mr. Syed Sajad Geelani, Advocate. VERSUS ASHIQ HUSSAIN DAR. Through: Mr. Tasaduq H. Khawaja, Advocate Mr. Iman Abdul Muizz, Advocate. …Respondent(s) CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY DHAR, JUDGE. ORDER 08.07.2025 01. The petitioner through the medium of the present petition has challenged Order dated 31st of October, 2023 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Magam whereby Drawing and Disbursing Officer of the petitioner has been directed to deduct an amount of Rs. 8,00,000/- from his salary in eight equal monthly instalments. 02. Heard and considered. 03. It appears that a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act came to be filed by the respondent against the petitioner before the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Magam and during the pendency of the aforesaid complaint, compromise dated 10th of October, 2022 was executed by the parties whereby the petitioner has undertaken to pay an amount of Rs. 12,00,00/- in twelve equal monthly installments and in default it was agreed that the petitioner shall pay double the amount which was the subject matter of the complaint. It was also agreed that the respondent would handover the remaining cheques to the petitioner. 04. Pursuant to the aforesaid compromise, the complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act came to be disposed of vide Order dated 31st of May 2023 passed by the trial Magistrate and the offences against the petitioner herein (accused therein) stood compounded in the light of the above mentioned compromise arrived at between the parties. 05. It appears that when the petitioner did not adhere to the terms of the compromise and did not make the payment in terms of the undertaking given by him at the time of entering into the compromise before the learned trial Magistrate, the respondent filed an Execution petition in terms of Section 421 of the Cr.PC seeking execution of the terms of the compromise against the petitioner. In the said Execution petition, impugned order dated 31st of October, 2023 came to be passed by the trial Magistrate issued a direction for attachment/deduction of an amount of Rs. 8,00,000/- from the salary of the petitioner in eight equal monthly installments. The said direction was forwarded to the concerned Drawing and Disbursing Officer of the petitioner. 06. The petitioner has challenged the impugned order dated 31st of October, 2023 on the ground that the learned trial Magistrate has ignored and dis- regarded the objections filed by him to the Execution petition. It has been further contended that from the impugned order, it is not discernable as to whether the learned Magistrate has considered the objections filed by the petitioner.. According to the petitioner only an amount of Rs. 2,00,000/- is outstanding whereas the rest of the amount has been paid by him to the respondent. It has also been submitted that the petitioner has been subject to unnecessary financial burden in spite of having paid substantial amount to the respondent. It has further been submitted that the respondent has not returned the cheques to the petitioner as was agreed by him in terms of the compromise arrived at between the parties. 07. So far as the Execution of the compromise arrived at between the parties and the terms thereof are concerned, the same are not in dispute. The only issue which has been raised by the petitioner is that he has made certain payments to the respondent pursuant to the compromise arrived at between the parties and the same is reflected in the objections filed by him to the Execution petition but the said assertions have not been dealt with by the learned trial Magistrate while passing the impugned order. This aspect of the matter can be taken care of by providing an opportunity to the petitioner to produce the relevant receipt, bank statements/documents etc evidencing the payment of any such amount by him to the respondent after filing of the Execution petition.. In the event, the same is done by the petitioner, the trial Magistrate would consider the same and pass appropriate orders. In case the petitioner fails to do so, there is no option but to issue orders of the attachment with regard to the assets of the petitioner for enforcing the terms of the compromise which have been admittedly agreed by the parties before the learned trial Magistrate. 08. In view of the above, the instant petition is disposed of with liberty to the petitioner to produce the relevant material/documents before the learned trial Magistrate evidencing the payment of any amount by him to the respondent after entertaining into the compromise with the respondent. The learned trial Magistrate after taking into account any material/document(s) that may be produced by the petitioner before him, shall be at liberty to pass an appropriate order. In the event no such material/document(s) is produced by the petitioner, the impugned order dated 31st of October, 2023 shall be taken to its logical conclusion. In case the whole of the amount is paid by the petitioner to the respondent in terms of compromise arrived at between the parties, the learned trial Magistrate shall ensure that the cheques are returned to the petitioner as agreed by them in terms of the compromise. The parties shall appear before the learned trial Magistrate on 21st of July, 2025. 09. Disposed of. (Sanjay Dhar) Judge SRINAGAR 08.07.2025 Showkat Khan