Item No. 12 Suppl List-4 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH AT SRINAGAR CRM(M) No.309/2025 CrlM No.735/2025 CrlM No.736/2025 BURHAN BEIGH …Petitioner(s) Through: Mr. Parvaiz Nazir, Adv. Vs. MOHAMMAD YOUSUF DAR …Respondent(s) Through: CORAM:HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY DHAR, JUDGE ORDER(ORAL) 06.06.2025 1. The petitioner, through the medium of present petition, has challenged order dated 13.11.2017 passed by learned Judicial Magistrate, 1stClass (City Judge) Srinagar (hereinafter referred to as the “trial Magistrate”), as also the complaint filed by the respondent against him for offence under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act. 2. Asper case of the petitioner, the respondent had filed a complaint under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act against him before the learned trial Magistrate in the year 2017. It was alleged by the respondent that the petitioner had issued a cheque dated 18.06.2017 for an amount of ₹ 92,81,562/ for discharging his liability towards him but the said cheque, when presented for encashment, was dishonoured due to 2 insufficiency of funds. Again, the petitioner is stated to have issued another cheque dated 3rdAugust 2017 for an amount of ₹ 21.00 lacs, which also met the same fate. After serving the notice of demand upon the petitioner, the impugned complaint came to be filed by the respondent. On 13.11.2017, the learned trial Magistrate took cognizance of the offence under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act and issued process against the petitioner. 3. It seems that a settlement deed was executed by the parties, whereby it was agreed by the parties that an amount of ₹13.50 lakhs is payable by the petitioner to the respondent, out of which the petitioner has already paid an amount of ₹7.00 lacs to the respondent. The balance amount of ₹6.50 lakhs was agreed to be paid by the petitioner, whereafter the respondent was to hand over the original cheques to the petitioner. It was in continuation to the aforesaid settlement deed that a further settlement was arrived at, wherein it was admitted that out of ₹6.50 lakhs, the respondent has received an amount of ₹50,000/ leaving a balance amount of ₹6.00 lacs. Another supplementary settlement deed came to be executed between the parties, whereby the respondent admitted having received a further sum of ₹50,000 leaving a balance of ₹5.50 lakhs. A further sum of ₹50,000 was admitted to have been received by the respondent vide another supplementary deed dated 24thof December 2021 leaving a balance amount of ₹5.00 lacks. A 3 further supplementary deed was executed by the parties, according to which the respondent received another sum of ₹50,000 leaving a balance amount of ₹4.50 lacs. 4. It appears that the petitioner had challenged the proceedings pending before the learned trial Magistrate by way of a petition under Section 482 (CRM(M) No.462/2022). During the pendency of said petition, it appears that the petitioner paid an amount of ₹1.00 lac to the respondent by way of demand draft dated 28th of August 2024. Another sum of ₹50,000 through cheque dated 17thof September 2024 was paid by the petitioner to the respondent, which is recorded in order dated 18thof September 2024, leaving a balance amount of ₹3.00 lacs. Thereafter the petitioner withdrew his petition and, accordingly, the same was dismissed as withdrawn in terms of order dated 26th of May2025. 5. The petitioner has again invoked the jurisdiction of this Court under Section 528 of BNSS for challenging the proceedings pending before the learned trial Magistrate on the ground that offences under Section 420 and 506 of RPC are not made out against him, even though it is alleged in the complaint that the said offenses are made out against the petitioner. It has been further contended that the matter between the parties stands already settled and the petitioner has to pay only an amount of ₹3.00 lacs to the respondent but due to oversight, on 26thof May 2025, the earlier petition filed by the petitioner 4 came to be dismissed as withdrawn, therefore, order dated 26thof May 2025 is required to be recalled. 6. Heard and considered. 7. So far as the contention of the petitioner that the offences under Section 420 and 506 of RPC are not made out against him, is concerned, in this regard it is to be noted that the learned trial Magistrate while issuing process against the petitioner in terms of order dated 13thNovember 2017, has taken cognizance of only offence under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act. The learned trial Magistrate has not taken cognizance of the offences under Section 420 and 506 of RPC at all. Therefore, the contention of the petitioner in this regard is misconceived and appears to be a result of misreading of the record of the trial Magistrate. 8. That takes us to the question with regard to the settlement arrived at between the parties. If a settlement has been arrived at between the parties, it is open to the petitioner to urge this aspect of the matter before the learned trial Magistrate. Section 147 of the Negotiable Instruments Act makes an offence under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act compoundable in nature. Thus, if the parties arrive at a settlement, the offence under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act can be compounded by the trial Magistrate. Therefore, notwithstanding the fact that the earlier petition filed by the 5 petitioner stands dismissed as withdrawn, it is open to the petitioner to approach the learning trial Magistrate and seek compounding of the offence against him by entering into a settlement with the respondent. It is never too late for the petitioner to seek compounding of the offence before the trial Magistrate in terms of Section 147 of the Negotiable Instruments Act by entering into a settlement with the respondent and by adhering to the terms of the said settlement. 9. For the foregoing reasons, I do not find any merit in the petition. The same is dismissed along with connected CrlMs, leaving it open to the petitioner to seek compounding of the offence before the learned trial Magistrate by adhering to the terms of the settlement, that may have been/may be arrived at between the parties. 10. A copy of this order be sent to the learned trial Magistrate for information. (Sanjay Dhar) Judge Srinagar 06.06.2025 “Bhat Altaf-Secy” Whether the order is reportable: Yes/No