S. No. 110 Suppl. Cause List IN THE HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH AT SRINAGAR CRM(M) No. 285/2025 CrlM No. 668/2025 Abdul Rashid Mir …Appellant/Petitioner(s) Through: Mr. Hamza Prince & Mr. Sajid Ahmad Bhat, Advocates Vs. Maqsood Hussain Wani ...Respondent(s) Through: CORAM: HON’BLE MR JUSTICE VINOD CHATTERJI KOUL, JUDGE O R D E R 31.05.2025 1. Quashing of complaint filed under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, by the respondent against the petitioner before the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Srinagar, (for short “Trial Court”), is sought for in this petition. 2. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that petitioner has appeared before the Trial Court and pleaded not guilty and the case is pending for recording evidence of complainant. It is further submitted by him that the complainant has filed another complaint against the petitioner and two others for the commission of offences under Sections 403, 415, 416, 506, Part II 34 IPC, which is pending before the Trial Court. It is evident from the said complaint that the petitioner has already discharged his liability on account of cheque as the complainant admits that the accused Nos.1 and 2 in the said complaint received an amount of Rs.12.00 lacs from the accused no.3 (petitioner herein). It is also submitted by him that on the basis of said complaint, the petitioner is seeking quashment of complaint filed under Section 138 of N. I. Act. 3. Whether pleadings relied upon by the petitioner contained in para 5 of the complaint filed by complainant can be treated as proved fact that the petitioner liquidated his liability without evidence being produced in the earlier complaint, in my opinion, it would be appropriate to direct the petitioner to approach the Trial Court and produce evidence before it in support of his contention that he has discharged his liability. The petitioner without producing the evidence before the Trial Court in support of his contention that he has discharged his liability as is claimed to be mentioned in subsequent complaint cannot be a ground to quash the proceedings. The fact what is stated would be the evidence which is to be produced before the Trial Court. 4. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that he has made an application before the Trial Court about this fact, but the same has not been decided till date. 5. In my opinion, it would be appropriate to direct the Trial Court to consider and decide the application of petitioner and also defence, which is to be produced by him expeditiously. Ordered accordingly. 6. Disposed of as above. (VINOD CHATTERJI KOUL) JUDGE SRINAGAR 31.05.2025 Manzoor Manzoor Ul Hassan Dar I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Srinagar 02.06.2025 17:04