matter of the said complaint was three cheques dated 03.10.2019, 05.10.2019 and 07.10.2019 for Rs.11.00 lakhs each drawn on HDFC Bank, Handwara. When the said cheques were returned unpaid by the banker, a demand notice dated 21.10.2019 came to be served by the petitioner upon the respondents. When the respondent failed to pay the amount of cheques despite service of demand notice, the petitioner filed a complaint before the Court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Handwara, on 04.110.2019 alleging commission of offence under Section 138 of the N.I. Act by the respondent.

3) After recording the preliminary evidence, the learned CJM, Handwara, issued process against the respondent, who, after putting in his appearance before the learned Magistrate, filed an application seeking dismissal of the complaint on the ground that the same has been filed prematurely. The application was dismissed by the learned CJM, Handwara, on 18.10.2021, by observing that there is no power with the Criminal Court to review its own orders.

4) The aforesaid order came to be challenged by the respondent by way of a revision petition before the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Handwara, who, vide his order dated 04.06.2021, observed that the issue as to whether or not the complaint is premature being triable in nature would be decided by the trial court after trial of the case.

5) Accordingly, after recording the evidence of the parties, the learned CJM, Handwara, vide his judgment dated 28.12.2023, dismissed the complaint of the petitioner, both on merits as also on the ground that the complaint filed by him against the respondent was premature because during the trial of the case it was established that the respondent had received the demand notice on 26.12.2019, whereas the complaint was filed on 04.11.2019, which is only after 10 days of receipt of the notice of demand.

6) The petitioner assailed the order/judgment of acquittal of the respondent and dismissal of the complaint by way of an appeal before this Court which was registered as CrlA(AS) No.03/2024. This Court vide judgment dated 08.08.2025 allowed the appeal and impugned judgment dated 28.12.2023 passed by the learned CJM, Handwara, in so far as it related to the decision of the complaint on merits, was set aside. It was, however, held that the complaint was filed by the petitioner prematurely before the expiry of stipulated period of 15 days. The Court further observed that the parties shall be free to take recourse to remedies, if any, available to them in law.

7) Pursuant to the aforesaid order passed by this Court, it seems that the petitioner presented a fresh complaint before the learned trial Magistrate in respect of the same very cheques which were subject matter of the earlier complaint filed before the CJM, Handwara. The fresh complaint came to be filed before learned trial Magistrate, as according to the petitioner, the cheques were presented for encashment before the Jammu and Kashmir Bank Limited, Hari Singh High Street, Srinagar. Along with the fresh complaint, the petitioner also filed an application under Section 142(b) of the N. I. Act, seeking condonation of delay in filing the complaint.

8) In the application for condonation of delay in filing the complaint, the petitioner pleaded that he was bonafidely prosecuting the complaint before CJM, Handwara, from 04.11.2019 till 08.08.2025, when this Court held that the complaint was premature and gave liberty to the petitioner to avail remedies available to him under law. It was further contended that the period spent by the petitioner in prosecuting his earlier complaint before CJM, Handwara, and the appeal before the High Court, is required to be excluded while computing the period of limitation for filing the fresh complaint.

9) The learned trial Magistrate, after inviting objections to the application of the petitioner and after hearing the parties, passed the impugned order, whereby application