Item No. 17 Regular List IN THE HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH AT SRINAGAR CRM(M) No.319/2021 CrlM No.1113/2021 SALEEMA BEGUM …Petitioner(s) Through: Mr. Yasir Nabi Rather, Advocate. Vs. ONEEB MUKHTAR NATHKHAN …Respondent(s) Through: None. CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY DHAR, JUDGE ORDER(ORAL) 21.02.2025 1. The petitioner, through the medium of present petition filed under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal of Criminal Procedure, challenged orders dated 10.04.2019 and 19.08.2021, passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate 1 Class (Judge Small Causes), Srinagar, in a complaint bearing File No.47/M, titled "Saleema Begum vs. Oneeb Mukhtar Nathkhan". By virtue of the impugned order dated 10.04.2019, the complaint filed by the petitioner has been dismissed as withdrawn observing therein that there has been an out of court settlement between the petitioners and the respondent. In terms of order dated 19.08.2021, application of the petitioners for recalling/reviewing order dated 10.04.2019 has been dismissed. 2 2. Impugned orders have been assailed by the petitioner, primarily, on the ground that though she had instructed her advocate to withdraw the complaint with liberty to pursue the remedies available in civil law, but the learned counsel exceeded his authority and filed an application for withdrawal of the complaint simpliciter by pleading therein that there had been an out of court amicable settlement between the parties. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner, that, as a matter of fact, there was no settlement arrived at between the parties and it was only a decision taken by the petitioner/complainant to pursue the civil remedies instead of pursuing the complaint which despite lapse of considerable time was not yielding any tangible results. 3. Despite service, nobody has appeared on behalf of the respondent. 4. I have learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the record. 5. From the material on record, it transpires that hat the application for seeking withdrawal of the complaint bears signatures of the counsel for the petitioner and not the signatures of the petitioner. As a matter of fact, the court below has not recorded the statement of the counsel for the petitioner or that of the petitioner. In these circumstances, there appears to be merit in the submission of the petitioner that they had not entered into a settlement with the respondent. 6. In view of the aforesaid position coupled with the fact that the respondent, despite service, has not chosen to contest this petition, the same is disposed of by providing that notwithstanding anything contrary 3 contained in the order impugned, the dismissal of the complaint of the petitioner as withdrawn in terms of the order impugned dated 10.04.2019 shall not be a bar for the petitioner to avail of the remedies available to her in law including the remedies in civil law. (Sanjay Dhar) Judge Srinagar 21.02.2025 “Bhat Altaf-Secy” Whether the order is reportable: Yes/No Mohammad Altaf Bhat I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document 25.02.2025 09:41