Jammu and Kashmir High Court
CM(M)/291/2026 of BASHIR AHMAD DAR Vs FAROOQ AHMAD DAR on 17 July 2026
OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH AT SRINAGAR CM(M) No.291/2026 BASHIR AHMAD DAR …Petitioner Through: Mr. Tariq Ahmad Shah, Advocate Mr. Zahid Khan, Advocate. VERSUS FAROOQ AHMAD DAR …Respondent Through: None. CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAHUL BHARTI, JUDGE. ORDER 17.07.2026
HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH
AT SRINAGAR
CM(M) No.291/2026
BASHIR AHMAD DAR
…Petitioner
Through: Mr. Tariq Ahmad Shah, Advocate
Mr. Zahid Khan, Advocate.
VERSUS
FAROOQ AHMAD DAR
…Respondent
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
17.07.2026
1. The petitioner was a complainant in a criminal complaint on File No. 175/M instituted on 14.07.2022 before the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, (CJM) Shopian.
2. The criminal complaint so filed by the petitioner was for trial of the respondent accused of alleged commission of offence under section 138 of the Negotiable instruments Act, 1881.
3. The petitioner is said to have completed his evidence so as to relieve himself from the responsibility as a complainant whereupon the court of Chief Judicial Sr. No. 106 Supp. Cause List-I
Magistrate (CJM) Shopian had carried out the proceedings by reference to section 311 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.
4. The compliant of the petitioner came to suffer dismissal on account of his non-appearance as well as that of his counsel in terms of an order dated 30.04.2026.
5. Aggrieved of dismissal of his compliant, the petitioner had come to this Court in first round with CRM(M) No.378/2026 which he came to withdraw with a liberty to file an appeal against the outcome of his said complaint.
6. The petitioner in the first round before this Court was represented by Advocate Mr. Tariq Ahmad Shah. The petitioner has again come back to this Court with a petition under article 227 of the Constitution of India may be under a mistaken belief that article 227 of the Constitution of India is the appeal meant to be filed by the petitioner for which his counsel had sought withdrawal of his CRM(M) No.378/2026.
7. This Court reminds Advocate Mr. Tariq Ahmad Shah that the petition under article 227 of the Constitution of
India is not a remedy of appeal to be is available under Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 for which he was granted leave to avail and, therefore, this Court is not inclined to entertain the petition which is dismissed with liberty granted to the petitioner in terms of an order dated 06.06.2026 in CRM(M) No.378/2026 being retained in his favour in case the petitioner comes to file an appeal by or before 30thof July 2026 then the intervening time consumed shall not be counted against the petitioner on account of plea of limitation.
8. Dismissed as such.
(RAHUL BHARTI)
JUDGE
SRINAGAR 17.07.2026 “Opinder”