[Cites 6, Cited by 0]
Jammu & Kashmir High Court
2026:Jklhc-Jmu:343 vs Asif Iqbal on 13 February, 2026
2026:JKLHC-JMU:343
Sr. No. 32
HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH
AT JAMMU
Case No.: CRM(M) No. 323/2023
CrlM Nos. 1608/2024,
2033/2024 & 598/2023
Date of Pronouncement:-13.02.2026
Uploaded on:- 16.02.2026
Deepak Bawa Sharma
.... Petitioner (s)
Through: - Mr. Dinesh Dogra, Advocate vice
Mr. Vishal Goel, Advocate.
V/s
Asif Iqbal
.....Respondent(s)
Through: - Mr. Aseem Sawhney, Sr. Adv. with
M/S Harsh Singh &
Anil Kumar, Advocates.
Mr. S H Rather, Advocate.
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY PARIHAR, JUDGE
ORDER
1. Heard learned counsel for the parties at length and perused the
record.
2. The present petition has been filed under Section 482 of the Code
of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter, "Cr.P.C"), seeking
quashing of complaint proceedings pending before the Trial Court
under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881
(hereinafter, "the Act").
3. The factual matrix, as emerging from the record, reveals that the
respondent/complainant instituted a complaint under Section 138 of
2026:JKLHC-JMU:343
the Act, alleging dishonour of cheque to the tune of ₹35,00,000/-.
It is stated that the petitioner was engaged in construction of villas
at Sainik Colony, Jammu, and the complainant had booked one
villa for a consideration exceeding ₹35,00,000/- which transaction
failed to fructify. In discharge of the alleged liability, the petitioner
is stated to have issued a cheque of ₹35,00,000/-, which, upon
presentation, was dishonoured, resulting in initiation of proceedings
under Section 138 of the Act.
4. The record further indicates that the petitioner has appeared before
the Trial Court, participated in the proceedings, and cross-examined
the complainant's witnesses. It is not in dispute that cognizance of
the offence was taken and when put with the accusation's u/s 251
Cr.P.C, to which the petitioner responded that he does not plead
guilty, without raising any specific plea that the cheque in question
was issued merely as security or that the underlying liability had
already been discharged.
5. The principal contention raised in the present petition is that the
cheque was not issued in discharge of any legally enforceable debt
or liability but was given only as a security instrument, which has
allegedly been misused by the complainant. It is further contended
that no subsisting liability existed at the time of presentation of the
cheque.
6. At this juncture, it is apposite to note that proceedings under
Section 138 of the Act are governed by the statutory presumption
contained in Sections 118 and 139 of the Act, which operate in
2026:JKLHC-JMU:343
favour of the holder of the cheque unless rebutted by the accused
during trial. The question whether a cheque was issued by way of
security or in discharge of a legally enforceable debt is essentially a
matter of evidence and cannot ordinarily be adjudicated in
proceedings under Section 482 Cr.P.C.
7. The scope of interference under Section 482 Cr.P.C is well-settled.
The inherent powers vested to this court are to be exercised
sparingly, with circumspection, and only in cases where
continuation of proceedings would amount to abuse of the process
of law or where the complaint does not disclose any offence. In the
present case, the complaint, on its face, discloses the ingredients
constituting an offence under Section 138 of the Act. The petitioner
has not demonstrated that the complaint has been filed with mala
fide intent or for an oblique purpose so as to warrant quashing at the
threshold.
8. Even if the plea of the petitioner that the cheque was issued as
security or that the liability stood discharged is taken at face value,
such pleas are matters of defence, which the petitioner is at liberty
to establish before the Trial Court by leading appropriate evidence.
This Court, in exercise of inherent jurisdiction, cannot undertake an
appreciation of disputed questions of fact or conduct a mini-trial.
9. Having regard to the above discussion, this Court is of the
considered view that no case is made out for exercise of inherent
jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. The petition is devoid of
merit.
2026:JKLHC-JMU:343
10. Accordingly, the present petition is dismissed along with connected
applications, if any. The Trial Court shall proceed with the
complaint in accordance with law and endeavour to dispose of the
same expeditiously.
11. Interim directions, if any, shall stand vacated. The record, if
summoned, be returned forthwith. Ordered accordingly.
(SANJAY PARIHAR)
JUDGE
JAMMU
13.02.2026
Ram Krishan
Whether the order is speaking? Yes
Whether the order is reportable? No
