1 Regular IN THE HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH AT SRINAGAR CRM(M) 330/2026 CrlM(765/2026 MUDASIR MOHAMMAD MIR ….. Petitioner(s) Through: Mr. Imtiyaz Ahmad Rather (through VC) V/s UMAR FAROOQ PARRY ….. Respondent(s) Through: Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sanjay Dhar, Judge ORDER 06.06.2026 1. The petitioner, through the medium of present petition, has challenged complaint filed by the respondent against him, before the court of Judicial Magistrate 1st Class, Tangmarg alleging commission of offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. Besides this, orders dated 18.02.2026 and 08.04.2026 passed by the learned trial Magistrate whereby proceedings under Section 491 of BNSS have been initiated against the petitioner, have also been put to challenge. 2. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the record of the case. 3. The main ground for challenging the impugned complaint and the proceedings initiated by the learned trial Magistrate P a g e | 2 CRM(M) 330/2026 CrlM(765/2026 under Section 491 of BNSS is that a compromise was arrived at between the parties on 25.04.2025 regarding which a written document was produced before the learned trial Magistrate and therefore, once there was compromise between the parties, the complaint ought to have been disposed of in terms of the compromise and there was no occasion for the learned trial Magistrate to continue the proceedings against the petitioner. It has been contended that if at all the petitioner had not adhered to the terms of the compromise, the course open to the accused was to file a petition for execution. 4. A perusal of the record of the trial court reveals that the very premise of the petition is wholly misconceived. It appears that the petition has been drafted without even going through the record of the trial court. Though the record does show that a compromise deed was filed by the parties before the learned trial Magistrate but statements of the parties in proof of the terms of the compromise were never recorded by the learned trial Magistrate. Obviously, the learned trial Magistrate has not passed any order in the light of the said compromise deed. Therefore, the position as on date is that the proceedings against the petitioner are continuing and the P a g e | 3 CRM(M) 330/2026 CrlM(765/2026 complaint is fixed for recording evidence of the complainant. The trial court record reveals that the petitioner has stopped appearing before the learned trial Magistrate and even the warrants of arrest issued against him could not be executed whereupon the learned trial Magistrate has initiated proceedings under section 491 of BNSS which provides the procedure when bonds are forfeited. It is pertinent to mention here that the bail bond of the petitioner stands already forfeited. 5. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances which have emanated from a perusal of the trial court record, this Court does not find any illegality or irregularity having been committed by the learned trial Magistrate while proceeding in the instant case. The petition is wholly misconceived and is dismissed accordingly. (Sanjay Dhar) Judge SRINAGAR 06.06.2026 Aasif