35 Regular HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH AT SRINAGAR CRM(M) No. 108/2025 Gull Mohd. Naikoo ….. Petitioner (s) Through: Mr. Syed M. Murtaza Rizvi, Adv. V/s Fayaz Ahmad Bhat ….. Respondent(s) Through: Mr. Sheikh Manzoor, Adv. Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sanjay Dhar, Judge ORDER 07.07.2025 1. The petitioner has challenged complaint filed by the respondents against him alleging commission of offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, which is stated to be pending before the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Handwara. 2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the material on record. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the impugned compliant is premature inasmuch as the notice of demand was served upon the petitioner only on 25.10.2024 whereas the complaint against him has been instituted on 07.11.2024, therefore statutory period of 15 days from the date P a g e | 2 CRM(M) No. 108/2025 of receipt of demand notice had not expired when the impugned complaint was instituted by the respondent before the learned trial Magistrate. In order to support this contention, the petitioner has placed on record a hand written document purported to have been issued by the Post Office, Sagam, Anantnag which shows that the notice of demand was delivered to the petitioner on 25.10.2024. 4. As per the averments in the impugned complaint, the notice of demand was sent through registered post by the respondent to the petitioner on 19.10.2024. The respondent/plaintiff has also placed on record along with his complaint, a copy of the postal receipt to support this contention. In the complaint, it has been submitted that despite service of notice upon the petitioner, he did not liquidate the amount of cheque within the statutory period of 15 days or thereafter. 5. The question whether the notice of demand was delivered to the petitioner on 25.10.2024 or a date prior to that, is a matter of trial. The hand written certificate placed on record by the petitioner along with the present petition is not a part of the complaint filed by the respondent and as such, is not an admitted document. The same is required to be proved before P a g e | 3 CRM(M) No. 108/2025 placing reliance upon it. This can be done during the trial of the case. This Court while exercising its power under Section 528 of BNSS cannot hold a mini trial to ascertain the veracity of the document purported to have been issued by the postal authority. 6. In view of the above, it would not be appropriate for this Court to exercise its powers under Section 528 of BNSS to interfere in the impugned proceedings which are pending before the learned trial court at this stage. 7. The petition is accordingly dismissed leaving it open to the petitioner to establish the veracity of the hand written certificate issued by the Post Office, Sagam, Anantnag at an appropriate stage during the trial of the case before the learned trial Magistrate. 8. Interim direction dated 03.03.2025 shall stand vacated. (Sanjay Dhar) Judge SRINAGAR 07.07.2025 Aasif