Jammu and Kashmir High Court
CM(M)/384/2026 of BILAL AHMAD DAR Vs MUHAMMAD SHAFI JAN on 29 August 2026
73 Suppl Cause List-2 IN THE HIGH COURT 0F JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH AT SRINAGAR CM(M) 384/2026 CM(5645/2026) BILAL AHMAD DAR …Appellant(s)/Petitioner(s) Through: Mr. Ishtiyaq Ahmad Mir, Advocate Vs. MUHAMMAD SHAFI JAN ...Respondent(s) Through: CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAHUL
S. No. 73
Suppl Cause List-2
IN THE HIGH COURT 0F JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH
AT SRINAGAR
CM(M) 384/2026
CM(5645/2026)
BILAL AHMAD DAR
…Appellant(s)/Petitioner(s)
Through: Mr. Ishtiyaq Ahmad Mir, Advocate
Vs.
MUHAMMAD SHAFI JAN
...Respondent(s)
Through:
CORAM:
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAHUL BHARTI, 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.
ORDER
29.08.2026
1. The petitioner is a willing participant as an accused in an ongoing criminal case by reference to Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments (NI) Act, 1881 initiated by the respondent before the court of Judicial Magistrate 1st Class (City Judge), Srinagar.
2. In said complaint case, not only the respondent, as a complainant, has led evidence from his end but even the petitioner has led evidence in defense from his end.
3. While the case is poised for final hearing in terms of an order dated 29.07.2026 closing the right of the petitioner to lead further evidence, the petitioner has come forward with the present petition invoking supervisory jurisdiction of this Court under article 227 of the Constitution of India for quashment of the criminal case as if jurisdiction under article 227 of the Constitution of India is meant to undertake appreciation of evidence in an original criminal case in which final judgment is yet to come from the trial court.
4. The petitioner has been misadvised to invoke jurisdiction of this Court in the context of facts and circumstances of the case, as such, the petition is not entertained and is, accordingly, dismissed.
5. The dismissal of this petition shall not be reckoned in any manner prejudicial to the case of the petitioner as an accused before the trial court.
6. Dismissed along with connected CM.
(RAHUL BHARTI)
JUDGE Srinagar 29.08.2026 “Imtiyaz”
Imtiyaz Ul Gani I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document 01.09.2026 15:53