Jammu and Kashmir High Court
CRM(M)/284/2026 of ABDUL RAZAK TANTRAY Vs TAHIR AHMAD MIR on 11 May 2026
No. 129 Supplementary cause list HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH AT SRINAGAR CRM(M)/284/2026 CrlM/666/2026 ABDUL RAZAK TANTRAY S/O GHULAM MOHD TANTRAY R/O TANTRAY MOHALLA SHERWANIABAD, GINNER KATHDURA, BARAMULLA …Appellant(s)/Petitioner(s) Through: Mr. Bhat Khursheed, Advocate.
Serial No. 129
Supplementary cause list
HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH
AT SRINAGAR
CRM(M)/284/2026
CrlM/666/2026
ABDUL RAZAK TANTRAY
S/O GHULAM MOHD TANTRAY
R/O TANTRAY MOHALLA SHERWANIABAD,
GINNER KATHDURA, BARAMULLA
…Appellant(s)/Petitioner(s)
Through:
Mr. Bhat Khursheed, Advocate.
Vs.
TAHIR AHMAD MIR
S/O GH. HASSAN MIR
R/O PUTHSHAI LOLAB,
TEHSIL LALPORA, DISTRICT KUPWARA
...Respondent(s)
Through:
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
11.05.2026
1. Petitioner, through the medium of this petition, filed under Section 528 of BNSS 2023 seeks quashment of complaint and summoning order passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Kupwara in a complaint titled “Tahir Ahmad Mir vs. Abdul Razak Tantray” under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act before the court of learned Judicial Magistrate, Kupwara.
2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner, as an accused before the court below, is a resident of Baramulla, as such, the Court below lacked territorial jurisdiction to try the complaint. Moreover, the cognizance
order passed by the court below has been passed without holding an enquiry under section 202 of Cr.PC.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner, however, could not substantiate as to how the court below lacked territorial jurisdiction in a cheque bounce case only on the plea that the accused was not a resident of the area within the territorial jurisdiction of the trial court. The other plea with regard to taking of the cognizance without holding an enquiry in terms of Section 202 of Cr.PC. before taking cognizance is also misplaced in view of the fact that the Negotiable Instruments Act is a complete code in itself and no such enquiry as provided under Section 202 Cr.PC. is required before taking cognizance in the matter.
4. The cognizance appears to have been taken after recording the statement of the complainant and the affidavits filed, as indicated in the order dated 19.07.2022 passed by the court below whereby it has been held that the accused was ‘prima facie’ found to have committed an offence under Section 138 of NI Act and the process was issued against the petitioner herein.
5. Viewed thus, no illegality, both on the points of jurisdiction as well as taking of cognizance is found, as such, the petition is found to be misconceived and is liable to be dismissed.
6. As a result, the petition is dismissed in limine along with application(s).
(M. A. CHOWDHARY)
JUDGE
SRINAGAR: 11.05.2026 “Hilal”