Serial No. 95 Regular Cause List IN THE HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH AT SRINAGAR CrlM(689/2025) IN CrlA(AS) 19/2025 WASEEM HASSAN MALIK …Petitioner(s)/Appellant(s). Through: Mr. Rafiq Bhat, Advocate Vs. REYAZ AHMAD LONE ...Respondent(s). Through: None CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE MOHD YOUSUF WANI, JUDGE ORDER 10.03.2026 1. There is no representation on the part of the respondent. 2. As per the Registry’s note dated 29.07.2025, the notice issued by the Registry under No. 12549 stands delivered to the respondent on 16.06.2025, as per the tracking repot. 3. Ex-parte proceedings are initiated against the respondent. 4. Through the medium of the instant acquittal appeal, the appellant seeks the setting aside of the order dated 20.02.2025 passed by the learned Court of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bandipora, in a complaint filed under the provisions of Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and titled as “Waseem Hassan Malik Vs. Reyaz Ahmad Lone”, bearing File No. 70/2023, on the main ground that the said order of dismissal of the complaint, having the effect of acquittal of the respondent/accused, suffers from illegality and perversity. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the appellant/complainant and considered his submissions. 6. Perused the memo of the instant acquittal appeal. Also perused the record of the dismissed complaint, especially the order dated 20.02.2025, whereby the complaint was dismissed for non-prosecution. The perusal of the impugned dismissal order dated 20.02.2025 reveals that none of the parties were present before the trial court on that day. It is borne out from the minutes of the proceedings on the trial court file that the present appellant/complainant was fully represented during a series of preceding dates of hearing. The learned Magistrate ought to have waited for at least one or two hearings before dismissing the complaint. Since none of the parties was reportedly present on 20.02.2025 at the trial proceedings, as such, no prejudice is supposed to have been caused to the other side on that day. 7. The Court is in agreement with the decision of this Court dated 24.11.2017, passed under similar circumstances in case titled “Vijay Kumar Sharma Vs. Ramesh Kumar”, 2017 Legal Eagle (J&K) 692, to the effect of setting aside of the dismissal order of a complaint for non- prosecution. 8. In the backdrop, this Court is of the opinion that it may meet the ends of justice in case the present appeal is allowed and the impugned order of dismissal of complaint dated 20.02.2025 is set aside. 9. It is accordingly ordered. 10. The learned trial court is directed to proceed further on the complaint in accordance with the law. 11. Disposed of. (MOHD YOUSUF WANI) JUDGE SRINAGAR 10.03.2026 ARIF