Jasveer Singh And Others vs Jugal Kishore
2026 Latest Caselaw 2 J&K

Jammu & Kashmir High Court

Jasveer Singh And Others vs Jugal Kishore on 12 January, 2026

                                                                   Sr. No. 30

      HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH
                      AT JAMMU

                                             CRM (M) No. 3/2026
                                             CrlM No. 7/2026

Jasveer Singh and others                     .....Appellant(s)/Petitioner(s)

                 Through: Mr. Ranjeev Dubey, Advocate

                Vs

Jugal Kishore                                            ..... Respondent(s)

                 Through:

Coram: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY PARIHAR, JUDGE

                                  ORDER

12.01.2026

1. The petitioner has called in question the proceedings initiated by the

respondent under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, contending

that the complaint is devoid of merit and is liable to be quashed as it amounts to

an abuse of the process of law. It is alleged that the complaint has been

malafidely instituted as a counterblast to suppress the petitioner's lawful claim,

for which the petitioner has already initiated a civil suit against the respondent

for recovery of an amount of ₹45,00,000/-.

2. From the pleadings and material annexed with the petition, it emerges that

the respondent filed a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable

Instruments Act against the petitioner before the Court of the learned JMIC

(Sub-Judge), Katra, registered as File No. 54/2025. Vide order dated

04.06.2025, the Trial Court diarized the complaint and, invoking Section 223 of

the BNSS, granted an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner at the pre-

cognizance stage. After hearing the petitioner, the Court, vide order dated

29.10.2025, took cognizance of the offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable

Instruments Act, upon being satisfied that cheques bearing Nos. 585947,

585948, and 585949 had been dishonoured vide memo dated 15.04.2025. It was

further noticed that the statutory legal notice had been duly served upon the

petitioner, as evidenced by the postal receipt dated 07.05.2025. The Trial Court

observed that although a hearing had been afforded at the pre-cognizance stage,

in view of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sanjabij Tari vs.

Kishore S. Borcar & another, reported as 2025 Live Law (SC) 952, the

requirement of hearing the accused at such stage stood dispensed with, and

accordingly process was directed to be issued.

3. The record further reveals that while the complaint under Section 138 was

filed on 04.06.2025, formal cognizance was taken on 29.10.2025. In the

interregnum, the petitioner instituted a civil suit before the Court of the District

Judge, Udhampur on 01.09.2025, seeking recovery of ₹45,00,000/-, claiming the

said amount as past liability arising out of contractual obligations between the

parties.

4. During the course of arguments, learned counsel for the petitioner

submitted that, as reflected from Annexure IV of the petition, a private

complaint under Sections 115, 126, and 352 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita had

also been filed by the petitioner against the respondent before the Court of the

Chief Judicial Magistrate, Udhampur, on 29.08.2025.

5. Thus, it is evident that multiple litigations are pending between the

parties. However, upon consideration, the petitioner has failed to carve out a

case warranting invocation of the inherent jurisdiction to quash the proceedings

under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. This is particularly so

because the petitioner invoked the civil remedy only after the filing of the

complaint under Section 138 and even the private criminal complaint was

instituted subsequent thereto.

6. It is apparent that the petitioner has initiated multiple proceedings against

the respondent with a view to derail the prosecution under Section 138 of the

Negotiable Instruments Act. The contention raised that once the Trial Court had

granted a hearing under Section 223 of the BNSS at the pre-cognizance stage,

the same could not have been dispensed with, is devoid of legal merit. The

essential ingredients of Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act include

the statutory presumption that the cheque was issued in discharge of a legally

enforceable debt or liability, followed by dishonour and compliance with the

mandatory requirements under Section 142 of the Act. Once these conditions are

fulfilled, the Court is competent to take cognizance and initiate proceedings. In

the present case, the Trial Court has rightly relied upon the judgment of the

Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sanjabij Tari vs. Kishore S. Borcar & another (2025

Live Law (SC) 952), holding that the requirement of hearing the accused at the

pre-cognizance stage under Section 223 of the BNSS stands dispensed with, as

proceedings under Section 138 are required to be governed by the special statute

itself.

7. The contention raised by the petitioner regarding non-service of the

statutory legal notice is also unfounded. The postal receipts clearly establish that

the legal notice was sent to the same address at which the petitioner was served

during the pre-cognizance proceedings.

8. The plea that the petitioner was denied the right of hearing is wholly

contradictory to the record. The interim orders placed on record categorically

demonstrate that the petitioner appeared through counsel and even sought time

to file objections to the complaint. The physical non-production of the petitioner

was deliberately avoided by his counsel, and therefore, it cannot be contended

that the petitioner was denied an opportunity of being heard.

9. In view of the foregoing discussion, no case for interference is made out.

The petition is devoid of merit and is accordingly dismissed. The Trial Court is

directed to proceed with the matter in accordance with law.

(Sanjay Parihar) Judge Jammu 12.01.2026 Nikhil