The High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh has dismissed a petition filed by Aijaz Ahmad Bhat challenging a 2012 order that took cognizance of a cheque dishonour complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The Court held that the petitioner could not question the alleged procedural defect after participating in the trial for years and allowing the matter to reach the stage of final arguments.
Background of the Case
The complaint was filed by Nisar Ahmad Malik, alleging dishonour of cheques worth ₹2,10,000. The Chief Judicial Magistrate, Shopian, took cognizance on 12 November 2012 after considering the complainant's statement and a witness. Years later, the petitioner approached the High Court under Section 528 of the BNSS, arguing that the Magistrate failed to conduct the mandatory inquiry required when an accused resides outside the court's territorial jurisdiction.
Justice Shahzad Azeem acknowledged that an inquiry under Section 202 of the Code (now Section 225 BNSS) is mandatory in such situations. The Court observed,
“Before taking cognizance of the complaint under Section 138 of the NI Act, the Magistrate is duty bound to conduct an inquiry when such accused resides beyond the territorial jurisdiction of the Court.”
However, the Court noted that the petitioner had participated in the entire trial, cross-examined witnesses, led defence evidence and raised no objection until the case had already reached the stage of final arguments. It held that the challenge at such a late stage appeared to be an afterthought and that no prejudice had been demonstrated.
The High Court ruled that any procedural irregularity was curable and did not justify interference under Section 528 BNSS. It dismissed the petition along with the connected application while clarifying that its observations were confined to the peculiar facts of this case and should not dilute the mandatory nature of the inquiry requirement when objections are raised at the proper stage.
Case Details:
Case Title: Aijaz Ahmad Bhat v. Nisar Ahmad Malik
Case Number: CRM (M) No. 388/2026; CrlM No. 906/2026
Judge: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Shahzad Azeem
Decision Date: 8 July 2026
-300x169.webp)
