Jammu and Kashmir High Court
CRM(M)/635/2026 of MURTAZA FAYAZ Vs HDFC BANK LTD TH.ITS MANAGER, BRANCH PULWAMA on 29 August 2026
No. 06 Regular Cause List HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH AT SRINAGAR CRM (M) No. 635/2026 CrlM No. 1462/2026 Murtaza Fayaz … Petitioner(s) Through: - Mr Rafi Ahmad Dar, Advocate. V/s HDFC Bank Ltd. … Respondent(s) CORAM: HON’BLE MR JUSTICE SHAHZAD AZEEM, JUDGE.
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
Serial No. 06 Regular Cause List
HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH AT SRINAGAR
CRM (M) No. 635/2026 CrlM No. 1462/2026
Murtaza Fayaz … Petitioner(s)
Through: - Mr Rafi Ahmad Dar, Advocate. V/s
HDFC Bank Ltd. … Respondent(s)
CORAM:
HON’BLE MR JUSTICE SHAHZAD AZEEM, JUDGE.
(ORDER) 29.08.2026
01. Heard learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioner.
02. The Petitioner has challenged Order dated 17th of May, 2018 passed by the Court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Pulwama, whereby the cognizance of offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act has been taken by the learned Magistrate.
03. The main ground urged by the Petitioner is that, while taking cognizance, the learned Magistrate did not comply with the mandate of Section 202 of the J&K Cr. P. C., in that, according to the Petitioner, the Magistrate did not record the statement of the Complainant or his witnesses and further the inquiry as mandated under Section 202 of the J&K Cr. P. C. is also not conducted.
04. On going through the impugned Order dated 17th of May, 2018, it appears that the learned Magistrate, while taking cognizance, has recorded the preliminary statement of the witnesses and has drawn the satisfaction before taking the cognizance. Therefore, it appears that the
Petitioner is reeling under complete misconception of facts and law, while directing the challenge against the impugned Order.
05. In view of above, the instant Petition is found to be misconceived and the same is, accordingly, dismissed along with connected CrlM.
(SHAHZAD AZEEM)
JUDGE SRINAGAR August 29th, 2026 “TAHIR”
Tahir Manzoor Bhat I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document