Sr. No. 12 HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH AT JAMMU CRM(M) No. 1052/2025 Haji Ghulam Qadir …. Petitioner/Appellant(s)

Through: - Mr. Farhan Mirza, Advocate V/s Charan Choudhary …. Respondent(s)

Through: - Mr. Vikram Sharma, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Zaheer Abhas Khan, Advocate CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY PARIHAR, JUDGE

ORDER

13.02.2026

1. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record of the Courts below.

2. The respondent–complainant instituted a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (hereinafter referred to as the “NI Act”) before the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jammu, alleging that the petitioner had approached him for financial assistance in connection with a “Handling Contract” allotted at PEG, Birpur on 10.05.2018. It was pleaded that a sum of ₹18,86,000/- was advanced towards 50% of the bank guarantee and other incidental expenses, with the assurance that the same would be repaid through cheque.

3. In discharge of the aforesaid liability, the petitioner allegedly issued Cheque No. 046630 dated 26.10.2022 for ₹16,36,000/- drawn on J&K Bank, Shalamar Road, Jammu. The cheque, upon presentation, was dishonoured with the endorsement “Account Blocked”. A statutory demand notice was served, however, despite lapse of the prescribed period, payment was not made. Consequently, the complaint under Section 138 NI Act was filed.

4. The Trial Court, after recording the statement of the complainant on affidavit and perusing the documents annexed with the complaint, took cognizance of the offence in terms of order dated 19.12.2022 and directed issuance of process against the petitioner. The petitioner assailed the said order before the Sessions Court by way of Criminal Revision No. Cr. Rev/1331/2024. The revisional court dismissed the revision vide order dated 03.10.2025 on the ground that the revision petition was barred by limitation and that the petitioner had been appearing before the Trial Court without objection for a considerable period.

5. The principal contention urged on behalf of the petitioner before this Court is that the Trial Court failed to comply with the mandate of Section 202 Cr.P.C. as the petitioner was residing beyond the territorial jurisdiction of the Magistrate, and that the order taking cognizance reflects non- application of mind. It was further contended that the revisional court erred in dismissing the revision on the ground of limitation despite explanation of delay.

6. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent submits that all statutory requirements under Sections 138 and 142 of the NI Act were duly complied with, that the Magistrate recorded the sworn statement of the complainant and examined the material placed on record before issuing process, and that the petitioner’s challenge is a belated attempt to stall trial proceedings.

7. Having considered the rival submissions and examined the record, this Court finds that the complaint discloses all essential ingredients of the offence under Section 138 of the NI Act. The issuance of cheque in discharge of a legally enforceable debt, its presentation within validity, dishonour, issuance of statutory notice, and failure to make payment within the stipulated period stand prima facie established from the averments in the complaint and supporting documents.

8. In terms of Section 139 of the NI Act, there arises a statutory presumption that the cheque was issued for discharge of a legally enforceable debt or liability. The scope and ambit of such presumption have been elaborately considered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in 2018 (8) SCC 165, wherein it was held that the presumption under Section 139 of the Act, includes the existence of a legally enforceable debt and the burden lies upon the accused to rebut the same by raising a probable defence. Mere denial of liability does not suffice. In the present case, the petitioner has not placed any material on record at this stage to rebut the statutory presumpti