HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH AT JAMMU CRM(M) No. 484/2025 Imtiaz Hussain Shah …..Appellant(s)/Petitioner(s) Through: Mr. Akash Choudhary, Advocate. q vs Asha Sharma .…. Respondent(s) Through: None. Coram: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH SEKHRI, JUDGE ORDER 30.06.2025 Petitioner is aggrieved of an application preferred by the respondent for enforcement of order dated 20.02.2024 and consequent order dated 11.11.2024 passed by learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Poonch [“the trial Court”], vide which arrest warrants came to be issued against him for payment of Rs.06 lakhs, to be executed through SSP concerned. Case of the petitioner is that respondent preferred a complaint against him under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act read with Section 420 IPC. During the pendency of the said complaint, the parties arrived at amicable settlement and an application for compromise came to be filed in the trial Court, in terms whereof, he agreed to pay Rs.53 lakhs to the respondent, within a time frame. In terms of the compromise arrived at between the parties, the aforesaid complaint came to be disposed of by the trial Court on 20.02.2024. The respondent preferred an application in the trial Court for enforcement of the aforesaid orders and learned trial court vide impugned order dated 11.11.2024, issued arrest warrants against him, without affording any opportunity of hearing. Sr. No. 02 2 CRM(M) No. 484/2025 A perusal of order dated 20.02.2024, reveals that as per the terms and conditions of the compromise, the petitioner agreed to pay Rs. 53 lakhs to the respondent/complainant in the shape of three instalments. The petitioner was obliged to pay first instalment of Rs.04 lakhs in May 2024 and clear the entire amount of Rs. 53 lakhs up to 31.08.2025. It appears that since the petitioner failed to pay any instalment, the respondent preferred an application for enforcement of the aforesaid order dated 20.02.2024, passed in terms of compromise between the parties. It also appears from the order sheet, annexed with the petition, that on 18.10.2024, learned counsel for the petitioner made a statement in the trial Court that he will pay Rs. 6 lakhs by or before the next date. However, since the said amount was not paid, learned trial Court vide impugned order dated 11.11.2024, issued arrest warrants against the petitioner for payment of Rs.6 lakhs. The petitioner is aggrieved of this order in the present petition. Mr. Akash Choudhary, Advocate has fairly admitted in the open Court that petitioner has not paid any instalment to the respondent after the compromise. In the circumstances, I do not find any illegality or impropriety in the impugned order passed by learned trial Court. Hence, the present petition is dismissed and impugned order is upheld. (Rajesh Sekhri) Judge Jammu 30.06.2025 Sushant