Jammu and Kashmir High Court
CM(M)/12/2026 of MANZOOR AHMAD SOFI Vs JAMEEL AHMAD BHAT AND ANR. on 18 May 2026
No. 149 Regular Cause list HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH AT SRINAGAR CM(M) 12/2026 CM(110/2026) CM(2672/2026) CM(2725/2026) CM(356/2026) Manzoor Ahmad Sofi S/O Khalil Mohammad Sofi R/O Chattabal, Srinagar …Appellant(s)/Petitioner(s) Through: Ms. Heena Lone, Advocate Vs. 1.
Serial No. 149
Regular Cause list
HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH
AT SRINAGAR
CM(M) 12/2026 CM(110/2026) CM(2672/2026)
CM(2725/2026) CM(356/2026)
Manzoor Ahmad Sofi
S/O Khalil Mohammad Sofi
R/O Chattabal, Srinagar
…Appellant(s)/Petitioner(s)
Through: Ms. Heena Lone, Advocate
Vs.
1. Jameel Ahmad Bhat
S/O Haji Sona-ullah Bhat
2. Mohd. Raliq Bhat
S/O Abdul Rehman Bhat
Both residents of Aloosa Bandipora.
...Respondent(s)
Through: Mr. Ishtiyaq Ahmad Mir, Advocate
CORAM:
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE M. A. CHOWDHARY, 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
18.05.2026
1. Petitioner, through the medium of this petition, seeks quashment of the proceedings in the case titled “Jameel Ahmad Bhat & Anr. Vs. Manzoor Ahmad Sofi”, pending before the court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bandipora, in file No. 78/Alif. The proceedings are sought to be quashed primarily on the ground that the petitioner had requested the Trial Court to afford him an opportunity to produce witnesses in his defence; however, no heed was paid to the said request, and his right to lead defence evidence was closed without granting him an opportunity. Consequently, it is contended that the proceedings are bad in law and liable to be quashed and set aside.
2. Learned counsel for the respondents submits that though the court below had granted ample opportunities to the petitioner, as an accused, to lead evidence, he failed to do so, which compelled the Trial Court to close his evidence. He further submits that the respondents, being the complainants, would have no objection if this Court permits the petitioner, as an accused, to lead evidence before the Trial Court within a stipulated timeframe.
3. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case, the petition is allowed, as having been conceded by the other side, with a direction to the trial court to permit the petitioner as an accused to examine his witnesses on a
single date. Petitioner shall lead his entire evidence on the next date fixed by the Trial Court. The original record is directed to be sent back forthwith.
4. Accordingly, the present petition, along with the connected application(s), stands disposed of, in the above terms.
5. Interim direction(s), if any, shall stand vacated.
(M. A. CHOWDHARY)
JUDGE
SRINAGAR: 18.05.2026 “Adil Ismail”