Jammu and Kashmir High Court
CM(M)/312/2026 of MOHAMMAD ASHRAF SHEIKH Vs MUGLI BEGUM AND ANOTHER on 5 August 2026
OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH AT SRINAGAR CM(M) No.312/2026 MOHAMMAD ASHRAF SHEIKH …Petitioner Through: Mr. R. A . Dar, Advocate. VERSUS MUGLI BEGUM AND ANOTHER …Respondent(s) Through: None. CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAHUL BHARTI, JUDGE. ORDER 05.08.2026 1. By
HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH
AT SRINAGAR
CM(M) No.312/2026
MOHAMMAD ASHRAF SHEIKH
…Petitioner
Through: Mr. R. A. Dar, Advocate.
VERSUS
MUGLI BEGUM AND ANOTHER
…Respondent(s)
Through: None.
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
05.08.2026
1. By reference to averments made in para 6 of the petition which read as under: “That the petitioner never entered into any compromise, never signed any compromise deed, and never authorized his counsel to compromise the proceedings or surrender his valuable legal and proprietary rights. The learned Magistrate failed to verify the free, voluntary and informed consent of the petitioner before passing the impugned order.” this Court is left with no other option but to refer the petitioner back to the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Baramulla by whose order dated 02.06.2026 the two proceedings, one under Section Sr. No. 152 Supp.Cause List-II
144 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) 2023 and the other under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 came to be disposed of on the basis of the purported agreement between the parties represented through their counsel.
2. The very opening line of order dated 02.06.2026 of the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Baramulla reads parties present along with their counsel who agree to resolve their dispute amicably on the terms set out.
3. In the light of this recital in the very order dated 02.06.2024 of the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Baramulla, the only thing which is meant to be exploited by the counsel for the petitioner herein is that the petitioner has not signed the proceedings whereas his counsel as well as counsel of the respondents are signatories to the proceedings.
4. This Court leaves it for the court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Baramulla to deal with this aspect as to whether the petitioner was present in person and was consenting party to the disposal of the case for which purpose the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Baramulla
shall summon the counsel of the respondent who represented him in the proceedings and recorded his statement so as to confirm the veracity of the proceedings of order dated 02.06.2026.
5. Disposed of accordingly.
(RAHUL BHARTI)
JUDGE
SRINAGAR 05.08.2026 “Opinder”