YUDHVIR SINGH KATOCH vs BASHARAT KHAN

HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH
AT SRINAGAR

CRM(M) No. 206/2023 C/w CRM(M) No. 207/2023

Reserved on: 09.10.2026
Pronounced on: 28.10.2026
Uploaded on: 28.10.2026
Whether the operative part or full
judgement is pronounced: Full


Yudhvir Singh Katoch
…Petitioner(s)
Through: Mr. Wajid Mohammad Haseeb, Advocate
Vs.
Basharat Khan
...Respondent(s)
Through: Mr. S. T. Hussain, Sr. Advocate with
Ms. Nida Nazir, Advocate
CORAM:
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE YASH PAUL BOURNEY, JUDGE

JUDGEMENT

1. This order shall govern the disposal of both the
petitions, which involve common questions of fact
and law and have been clubbed together and
taken up for joint disposal.
2. The petitioner, Yudhvir Singh Katoch, has filed
the instant petitions under Section 482 Cr.P.C.,
seeking quashment of the complaints bearing Nos.
126/Comp./M, titled “Mohsin Khan v. Yudhvir
Singh Katoch,” and 127/Comp./M, titled
“Basharat Khan v. Yudhvir Singh Katoch,” pending
1
CRM(M) No. 206/2023
C/w CRM(M) No. 207/2023

before the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate 1st
Class (Sub-Registrar), Srinagar, along with the
respective orders dated 30.07.2022, whereby
cognizance was taken against him for the
commission of offences punishable under Section
138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881
(hereinafter referred to as the “N.I. Act”). The
complaints have been instituted by the two
respondents, who are father and son, on the basis
of three cheques issued in favour of each of them.
3. The petitioner, who happens to be a property
dealer and has challenged the maintainability of
the complaints and the consequential proceedings
primarily on the grounds that the cheques in
question were presented on different dates,
whereas a composite demand notice was issued in
respect of all three cheques in each complaint,
which, according to him, is contrary to the
mandate of the provisions of Section 138 of the
N.I. Act. It is further contended that the statutory
notice in respect of one of the cheques in each
case was not issued within the prescribed period
of thirty days from the date of receipt of
2
CRM(M) No. 206/2023
C/w CRM(M) No. 207/2023

information regarding dishonour thereof. In
respect of the remaining cheques, the complaints
have been instituted prematurely before expiry of
the statutory period of fifteen days from the date
of receipt of the demand notices. The petitioner
also contends that a part of the amounts covered
by the cheques had already been paid, which fact
was not taken into consideration and the cheques
were presented for encashment of entire amount.
It is, accordingly, urged that the learned Trial
Magistrate fell into error in taking cognizance and
issuing process against the petitioner. Petitioner
has also questioned the proceedings on the
ground that the procedure contemplated under
Section 202 Cr.P.C. was not followed, despite he
being a resident of Udhampur. It is, therefore,
contended that continuation of the proceedings
would be an abuse of the process of the Court and
hence warrants intervention of this Court in
exercise of its inherent jurisdiction.
4. Per contra, the case set up by the respondents is
that the petitioner approached them and offered
to sell a plot of land situated at Nagrota,
3
CRM(M) No. 206/2023
C/w CRM(M) No. 207/2023

Udhampur. Since one of their relatives already
owned a house in the vicinity so both respondents
agreed to purchase the plot in equal proportion
for a total sale consideration of Rs. 83.00 lakhs,
which the petitioner insisted upon receiving in
cash. In furtherance of the proposed transaction,
respondent Basharat Khan paid an amount of Rs.
12.00 lakhs in cash to the petitioner at his
residence, whereas his son respondent Mohsin
Khan, paid an amount of Rs. 16.00 lakhs in the
similar manner. However, after some time, the
respondents came to know that a dispute existed
with respect to the land in question and that a
civil suit concerning the same was pending.
Consequently, the transaction was cancelled, and
the petitioner undertook to refund the amounts
received by him as advance.

5. It is further the case of the respondents that,
towards repayment of the aforesaid amounts, the
petitioner issued three cheques in favour of
respondent-Basharat Khan, bearing No. 005169
dated 29.04.2022 for Rs. 4.00 lakhs, No. 022193
dated 29.04.2022 for Rs. 3.00 lakhs and No.
4
CRM(M) No. 206/2023
C/w CRM(M) No. 207/2023

022194 dated 29.04.2022 for Rs. 2.50 lakhs,
drawn on J&K Bank, Jaganoo Morh Branch,
Udhampur, and Union Bank of India, Udhampur
Branch respectively. Similarly, the petitioner
issued three cheques in favour of respondent-
Mohsin Khan, bearing No. 005170 dated
29.04.2022 for Rs. 4.00 lakhs, payable at J&K
Bank, Jaganoo Morh Branch, Udhampur, No.
022192 dated 29.04.2022 for Rs. 3.00 lakhs and
No. 022195 dated 29.04.2022 for Rs. 2.50 lakhs,
both payable at Union Bank of India, Udhampur
Branch.
6. The respondents have further claimed that, in
order to gain their confidence, the petitioner
transferred an amount of Rs. 2.00 lakhs to
respondent Basharat Khan on 31.05.2022
through RTGS and assured him that the
remaining amount of Rs. 50,000/- would be
transferred within a few days. Likewise, the
petitioner is stated to have transferred certain
amounts to respondent-Mohsin Khan on different
dates through UPI/Google Pay, M-Pay and RTGS.
The particulars of the said transactions, as set out
5
CRM(M) No. 206/2023
C/w CRM(M) No. 207/2023

in the pleadings, include transfers stated to have
been made on 29.04.2020, 23.05.2022 and
14.06.2022. According to the respondents, these
transfers were towards repayment of the amounts
owed by the petitioner over and above the
amounts of the cheques in question. They,
therefore, disputed the petitioner's contention that
the amounts transferred constituted part-
payment of the amounts covered by the cheques.
7. The record reveals that the petitioner was
examined by the learned Trial Court with
reference to the allegations contained in the
complaints on 02.03.2023, before he instituted
the instant petitions on 11.05.2023. During his
examination, the petitioner did not dispute the
issuance of the cheques or his signatures thereon.
He, however, claimed that the cheques had been
issued as security towards some liability, without
clarifying the nature and extent of such liability or
the transaction in respect of which the cheques
were allegedly issued as security.
8. The record further reveals that the respondents
pleaded that the first cheque was returned unpaid
6
CRM(M) No. 206/2023
C/w CRM(M) No. 207/2023

on 08.06.2022, whereas the remaining two
cheques were returned unpaid on 04.07.2022.
Thereafter, a composite demand notice in respect
of all three cheques was issued on 07.07.2022.
The petitioner did not respond to the said notice
and has denied its receipt, notwithstanding the
fact that the respondents have placed the relevant
postal tracking reports on record. The said reports
are stated to indicate that the notices were sent
through registered post and delivered to the
addressee on 15.07.2022 at 1.10 PM.
9. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner,
while reiterating the grounds urged in the
petitions, has vehemently argued that the
complaints are premature, having been instituted
on the fifteenth day, whereas the petitioner was
entitled to the statutory period of fifteen days from
the date of receipt of the demand notice for
making payment. It is, therefore, contended that
the learned Trial Magistrate could not have
proceeded to take cognizance of the alleged
offences before expiry of the said period. Learned
counsel has further submitted that a part of the
7
CRM(M) No. 206/2023
C/w CRM(M) No. 207/2023

amounts covered by the cheques had already been
paid and that the entire amounts represented by
the cheques were, therefore, not outstanding. It is
argued that the learned Trial Court has failed to
take these material aspects into consideration
and, as such, has fallen into error in taking
cognizance and issuing process against the
petitioner. It is further contended that the
statutory requirements under Section 138 of the
N.I. Act have not been duly complied with and
that the procedure contemplated under Section
202 Cr.P.C. was also not followed. On these
grounds, learned counsel submits that
continuation of the proceedings would amount to
an abuse of the process of the Court and seeks
quashment of both the complaints and the orders
impugned therein.

10. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents,
on the other hand, has controverted the
submissions advanced on behalf of the petitioner
and contended that the instant petitions are an
afterthought, intended to prolong the proceedings.
It is submitted that the petitioner has already
8
CRM(M) No. 206/2023
C/w CRM(M) No. 207/2023

succeeded in prolonging the trial of the
complaints and has kept the respondents
embroiled in litigation for more than three years.
Learned counsel has further argued that the
amounts transferred through RTGS, Google Pay
etc. were actually paid towards repayment of the
balance amounts owed by the petitioner to the
respondents and not towards discharge of the
liabilities represented by the cheques in question.
It is, accordingly, contended that the plea of part-
payment of the cheque amounts is misconceived.
Learned counsel for the respondents has further
submitted that the complaints were instituted
after expiry of the statutory period prescribed
under Section 138 of the N.I. Act and that the
impugned orders do not suffer from any illegality
or jurisdictional error warranting interference by
this Court. Learned senior counsel has, therefore,
prayed for dismissal of both the petitions.
11. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused
the material available on record.
12. A careful examination of the records of the two
complaints reveals that the respondents, in both
9
CRM(M) No. 206/2023
C/w CRM(M) No. 207/2023

the complaints, have specifically stated the
amounts advanced by them towards part payment
of the sale consideration, as agreed between the
parties. They have also furnished details of the
amounts sought to be paid through cheques, the
amounts transferred through Google Pay, RTGS,
etc., as well as the assurances allegedly extended
by the petitioner towards re-payment of the
balance amounts of consideration. The
respondents have thus provided a detailed
breakup of the amounts due and the payments
allegedly made assurance/assured. However, the
petitioner has not placed any material on record
to substantiate his contention that the amounts
transferred through Google Pay, RTGS, etc., were
actually paid towards part payment of the
amounts covered by the cheques. The petitioner
neither responded to the demand notices nor has
raised any such a plea before the Trial Court
when examined with reference to the allegations
contained in the two complaints. In these
circumstances, the plea now sought to be raised
is apparently to be an afterthought, advanced
10
CRM(M) No. 206/2023
C/w CRM(M) No. 207/2023

with a view to invoking the jurisdiction of this
Court. The said contention, therefore, does not
merit acceptance.
13. The next contention raised on behalf of the
petitioner is that the complaints were instituted
before the expiry of the statutory period of fifteen
days from the service of the demand notices. In
this regard, a perusal of the tracking reports
pertaining to the two registered letters through
which the demand notices were dispatched
reveals that the same were delivered on
15.07.2022 at 1:10 PM. Reckoning the statutory
period from the date of service of the notices, the
petitioner was required to make payment within
fifteen days thereof, i.e. by 30.07.2022. However,
both the complaints came to be presented before
the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Srinagar on
29.07.2022 who, in turn, assigned the same to
the learned Judicial Magistrate 1st Class (Sub-
Registrar), Srinagar on the same day, but were
listed before the said Magistrate on next day who
took cognizance and issued process against the
petitioner on the same day. The provisions of the
11
CRM(M) No. 206/2023
C/w CRM(M) No. 207/2023

Act seek to remedy the financial indiscipline
during the course of commercial dealings which at
times may ruin the business/trade of the effected
party and therefore, the provisions must receive
fair, pragmatic, harmonious and purposive
interpretation so that object of the enactment is
achieved and the cause of justice is advanced.
Hon’ble Supreme Court, in Union of India Vs.
Ranbaxy Laboratories Limited and Others,
2008 (7) SCC 502 has held that principles of
interpretation of statue mandate the
constitutional courts to shun any construction
which results in injustice, absurdity and anomaly
that leads to inconsistency and friction in the
system, which the statute purports to regulate,
has to be rejected. The Court has not only to take
a pragmatic view while interpreting a statutory
provision, but must also consider the practical
aspect of it.
14. In Narashimaha Murthy Vs. Susheelabai and
Others 1996 (3) SCC 644 Hon'ble Supreme
Court held that purpose of law is to prevent
brooding sense of injustice. It is not the law, but
12
CRM(M) No. 206/2023
C/w CRM(M) No. 207/2023

the spirit and eternal sense of it that makes the
law meaningful.
15. Viewed thus, it is evident that complaints,
although instituted before the expiry of the
statutory period of fifteen days, yet by the time
cognizance thereon was taken on the next day as
per the delivery reports of the demand notice, the
fifteen days’ time for making the payments
thereunder was already over. Thus, even if no
cause of action had accrued on the date of filing of
the complaints, still by the time the complaints
were considered and cognizance was taken by the
learned Magistrate, the statutory period had
expired. Not only that, petitioner had the time to
make payments or respond to the demand notice
even thereafter till he received the summon for
appearance. But that being not the case, mere
filing of the complaints a day earlier was of no
consequence when the cognizance thereon came
to be taken on the next day only and moreover,
the petitioner has nowhere exhibited his
inclination to pay the cheque amounts at any
stage of the proceedings during the last more than
13
CRM(M) No. 206/2023
C/w CRM(M) No. 207/2023

four years and thus, has not been prejudiced at
all in any manner. It would be apt to underline
that provisions of Section 138 of Negotiable
Instruments Act, 1881 are aimed at addressing
the financial indiscipline in the day-to-day
business transactions which are required to be
interpreted in a pragmatic and meaningful way so
that ultimate object of the legislation is achieved.

16. For the foregoing reasons, both these petitions are
dismissed , and the order dated 30.07.2022,
whereby cognizance was taken and process was
issued against the petitioner in the two
complaints, are upheld. Interim direction(s), if
any, shall stand vacated.
17. Copy of this Judgement be placed across both
these files.
18. Registry shall also send a copy of this judgement
to the Trial Court for information.
(YASH PAUL BOURNEY)
JUDGE
SRINAGAR
28.10.2026
“Dar Manzoor”

Whether the order is speaking: Yes/No
Whether the order is reportable: Yes/No.
14
CRM(M) No. 206/2023
C/w CRM(M) No. 207/2023