LADAKH AT JAMMU Case:- CRM(M) No. 953/2023 CrlM No. 1893/2023 Iftikar Ahmad v. Abdul Majeed

power, the High Court is not required to embark upon the appreciation of evidence for quashing the proceedings and even the expressions “abuse of process of law” or “to secure the ends of justice” have been held by the Apex Court not conferring an unlimited jurisdiction in the High Court besides holding that if factual foundation for offence has been laid down in the complaint, the High Court should not hasten to quash proceedings merely on the premise that one or two ingredients have not been stated therein.

06. Keeping in mind the aforesaid position of law and reverting back to the case in hand, a closure examination of the impugned complaint would manifestly tend to show that the complainant-respondent herein has specifically and in explicit terms alleged the dishonor of cheque-in-question issued by the accused-petitioner herein in his favour qua the amount, the accused-petitioner herein was supposed to pay to him on account of execution of the construction of the residential house of the accused-petitioner. It also gets revealed impugned complaint complainant has complied with the requirements as are envisaged under the Act of 1881 before proceeding to institute the impugned complaint. It transpires that the respondent herein has laid a solid factual foundation qua the offence alleged to have been committed by the accused- petitioner in the complaint for setting law into motion and thus the maintainability of the impugned complaint 5 CRM(M) No. 953/2023 CrlM No. 1893/2023 questioned by the accused-petitioner in the instant petition is not legally sustainable. Insofar as the challenge thrown to the impugned order passed by the Magistrate dated 09.02.2023 is concerned, a bare perusal of the same manifestly reveals that the Magistrate has been alive to the facts and circumstances of the case and has rightly and validly passed the impugned order with complete application of mind, as such, the Magistrate cannot be said to have faulted in the matter, as such, the challenge thrown to the impugned order as well is not legally tenable.

07. Viewed thus, in the light of the aforesaid facts and circumstances and the legal position, this Court is not inclined to exercise inherent power in the matter. Resultantly, the petition fails and is, accordingly, dismissed. It is made clear that any observation made hereinabove qua the impugned complaint be deemed to have been expressed only for the purpose of the determination of the instant petition and shall in no case deemed to be expression of any opinion qua the matter pending before the Magistrate.

08. At this stage the learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that this Court in terms of order dated 08.11.2023 stayed the proceedings in the complaint pending before the Magistrate subject to the depositing of an amount of Rs. 1,00,000/- by the petitioner before the Registry and in 6 CRM(M) No. 953/2023 CrlM No. 1893/2023 compliance thereof the petitioner has deposited the said amount before the Registry. The learned counsel for the petitioner in view of disposal of the petition, thus, would pray for release of the said amount in favour of the petitioner along with the interest, if any, accrued thereon. In view of the above, the Registry is directed to release the amount of Rs. 1,00,000/- claimed to have been deposited by the petitioner in terms of order dated 08.11.2023 in his favour upon his proper verification and identification by his counsel along with the interest that may have accrued thereon. Disposed of. JAMMU 29.01.2024 Bunty (JAVED IQBAL WANI) JUDGE Whether the order is speaking: Yes Whether the order is reportable: Yes