Jammu and Kashmir High Court
CRM(M)/93/2026 of MOHAMMAD MAQBOOL DAR AND ANOTHER Vs NAZIR AHMAD BHAT on 4 March 2026
Suppl List HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH AT SRINAGAR CRM(M) 93/2026 CrlM(218/2026) MOHAMMAD MAQBOOL DAR AND ANOTHER Petitioner(s)… Through: Mr. Sheikh Hilal, Adv. Vs. NAZIR AHMAD BHAT ...Respondent(s) Through: CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAHUL BHARTI JUDGE ORDER
S. No.133
Suppl List
HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH
AT SRINAGAR
CRM(M) 93/2026 CrlM(218/2026)
MOHAMMAD MAQBOOL DAR AND ANOTHER
Petitioner(s)…
Through: Mr. Sheikh Hilal, Adv.
Vs.
NAZIR AHMAD BHAT
...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
04.03.2026
1. The petitioners, as accused in a criminal complaint for alleged commission of offences under section 138 read with Section 142 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1981, came forward with an application invoking jurisdiction of trial court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Budgam for recalling the complainant who otherwise has deposed as his own witness in the case and even cross-examined by the petitioners as accused.
2. Since the application did not cite any factual reference in the context whereof the recalling of the complainant was being solicited by the petitioners, as such the application so preferred by the petitioners came to suffer rejection by way of an order dated 16.02.2026 from the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Budgam.
3. This Court cannot find any error of judgment or jurisdiction on the part of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Budgam in dismissing the application so preferred by the petitioners once the application itself was having no factual footing for inviting the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Budgam to exercise jurisdiction for the purpose of advancing the cause of justice in the adjudication of the criminal complaint, as such, this petition is held to be misconceived.
4. Nothing observed by the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate Budgam in order dated 16.02.2026 and also by this Court in the present order shall be prejudicial to the petitioners in the context of their defence in the complaint so pending adjudication before the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Budgam.
(RAHUL BHARTI)
JUDGE SRINAGAR 04.03.2026 Hilal