Serial No. 138 Supp. Cause List IN THE HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH AT SRINAGAR CRM(M) 475/2025 CrlM 1141/2025 MOHAMMAD YOUSUF WANI … Petitioner(s) Through: Mr. Firdous Ahmad Bhat, Advocate Vs. MASHOOQA JAN ...Respondent(s) Through: CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE JAVED IQBAL WANI, JUDGE ORDER 13.08.2025 1. The instant petition has been filed by the petitioner under section 528 BNS seeking quashing of order dated 14.06.2025, filed by Judicial Magistrate First Class, Pattan in complaint titled as “Mashooqa Jan Vs. Mohammad Yousuf Wani”. 2. The facts emerging from the record would reveal that the respondent herein filed a compliant under Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, against the petitioner herein qua the bouncing of a cheque amounting to Rs. 15.00 lacs claimed to have been issued by the petitioner herein to the respondent herein in discharge of a debt. Along side the said complaint, the complainant/respondent herein had also filed an application under section 143-A of the Act of 1881 for grant of interim compensation, wherein the Magistrate in terms of the impugned order, ordered the accused/petitioner herein to pay 20% of the cheque amount to the complainant/respondent herein within a period of 60 days subject to furnishing of an undertaking by the complainant/respondent herein that in the event the complaint is dismissed, he shall repay the said amount back to the accused/petitioner along with relevant bank rates. 3. The impugned order has been challenged by the petitioner herein in the instant petition on the premise that the order being is bad in law, however, could not be challenged by the petitioner earlier on account of a process of compromise undertaken and that otherwise also the order is bad in law having been passed arbitrarily in violation of settled position of law without assigning any reason and lawful justification thereto by the Magistrate. Heard counsel for the petitioner and perused the record. 4. Perusal of the record available on the file in general and impugned order in particular manifestly tend to show that the Magistrate has taken into consideration the respective case of the parties inasmuch as the provisions of Section 143-A of the Act of 1881 and seemingly has upon consideration of the same exercised discretion in tune with the provisions of law. 5. Thus, in view of above this Court is not inclined to exercise inherent power and interfere with the said discretionary order of the Magistrate which is found to be well reasoned and in tune with the mandate of law. 6. Resultantly the petition fails and is accordingly dismissed. (JAVED IQBAL WANI) JUDGE SRINAGAR: 13.08.2025 “S.Nuzhat”