CRM(M) No. 660/2023 Serial No.09 Regular list IN THE HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH AT SRINAGAR. CRM(M) No. 660/2023 Jagjit Singh. ….. Petitioner(s) Through: - Mr. Shah Ashiq Hussain, Advocate. V/s M/S Bali Constructions & Anr. ….. Respondent(s) Through: - Mr. Vaseem Aslam, Advoate. CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE JAVED IQBAL WANI, JUDGE ORDER 13.03.2025. 1. In the instant petition, the petitioner herein has invoked inherent power of this Court for quashing order dated 14th September, 2023 (for short the impugned order) passed by the court of 2nd Additional Munsiff (JMIC), Srinagar (for short the Magistrate) in case tilted as M/s Bali Constructions and Another v. Reen Constructions and Another. 2. The facts giving rise to the filing of the instant petition in brief are that the respondent 1 herein filed a complaint under Section 138 read with 141 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, against the respondent 2 herein as well as petitioner herein, alleging therein in the said complaint that the accused persons being the proforma respondent 2 herein and the petitioner herein assigned a job of erecting of 09 M electric Abdul Rashid Ganaie I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document CRM(M) No. 660/2023 poles, earthling, excavation for 9 M long poles in village Turtuk, Leh to the complainant- respondent 1 herein in the year 2021 which work was satisfactory completed upon spending an amount of Rs.25,30,000/- out of which an amount of Rs. 12.00 lacs came to be paid and in respect of the outstanding of Rs. 13,30,000/- a cheque was issued favoring the complainant bearing No. 603791 dated 26.12.2022, duly signed by the accused-proforma respondent 2 herein and upon presentation of the said cheque by the complainant before his bank, i.e, Canara Bank, Branch Barrian, Udhampur for encashment, the same got dishonored vide memo dated 25th January, 2023, for the reason of ‘insufficient funds’ whereupon the complainant made a demand for payment thereof through notice(s) dated 16 & 17th February, 2023 to both the accused persons within a period of 15 days and upon their failure to pay the amount covered under the cheque to the complainant within the stipulated period of time, the complainant filed the complaint. 3. 3. The Magistrate upon entertaining the complaint on 18th March, 2023, initially returned the complaint back to the complainant on the ground of lack of territorial jurisdiction which order Abdul Rashid Ganaie I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document CRM(M) No. 660/2023 however, came to be set aside by the Revisional court, i.e., 4th Additional Sessions Judge, Srinagar in terms of order dated 01.05.2023 after being called in question by the complainant- respondent 1 herein, allowing the complainant to file the complaint before the Magistrate with the direction to the Magistrate to proceed thereon, in accordance with law, where after the Trial Magistrate before proceedings to take cognizance there in the complaint, desired to have an enquiry held by the police under Section 202 Code of Criminal Procedure and upon receipt of a report thereof in terms of impugned order took cognizance of the offence and consequently summoned the accused persons being proforma respondent 2 herein and petitioner herein. 4. The petitioner herein has challenged the impugned order in the instant petition inter-alia on the grounds that the Magistrate has passed the impugned order without considering the matter in its right and correct perspective, in that, the cheque in question had been issued by the respondent 2 herein, a proprietorship concern of his wife namely Gurmeet Kour and that the petitioner was not at all connected with the issuance of the said cheque and, as such, the Abdul Rashid Ganaie I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document CRM(M) No. 660/2023 Magistrate could not have proceeded against him in terms of the impugned order. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 5. Perusal of the record available on the file indisputably reveals that the proforma respondent 2 herein is a proprietorship concern owned by one Gurmeet Kour W/O Jugjit Singh, registered as such, with the Government of Jammu and Kashmir under the Shops and Establishments Act, 1966, besides with Government of India under Sale Tax Act inasmuch as, with Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises Development Act, 2006 (MSMED Act). 6. Further perusal of the cheque in question available on the file also tends to show that the same stands issued by the proforma respondent 2 herein in favour of the respondent 1 herein and not by the petitioner herein. 7. In presence of the aforesaid factual position obtaining in the matter, the Magistrate could not have proceeded against the petitioner herein in the complaint filed by the respondent 1 herein. The Magistrate however, having entertained not only the complaint filed by complainant- respondent 1 herein against the petitioner, but also having proceeded therein, against the petitioner herein has thus, grossly erred in law. Abdul Rashid Ganaie I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document CRM(M) No. 660/2023 8. For the aforesaid reasons, the instant petition deserves to be allowed, as a consequence whereof the complaint filed by respondent 1 herein against the petitioner herein including the proceedings initiated thereon alongwith impugned order dated 14th September, 2023, insofar as the petitioner is concerned is, quashed. 9. The Magistrate however, shall be free to proceed in the matter against the proforma respondent 2 herein in accordance with law. 10. Disposed of along with connected CrlM. (Javed Iqbal Wani) Judge SRINAGAR 13.03.2025 “Abdul Rashid” Whether approved for reporting? Yes/No Abdul Rashid Ganaie I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document