Jammu & Kashmir High Court – Srinagar Bench
Opposite Light & Sound Gate vs Shalimar on 27 July, 2026
Serial No. 30
Regular Cause List
HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH
AT SRINAGAR
CrlM No. 692/2025 in
CRM (M) No. 394/2023
Dated: 27th of July, 2026.
Bashir Ahmad Rather, Age: 46 Years
S/O Mohammad Qasim Rather
R/O Gulshan Ali, Shalimar,
Opposite Light & Sound Gate, Srinagar.
... Petitioner(s)
Through: -
Mr Aadil Parray, Advocate.
V/s
Nisar Ahmad Zargar
S/O Ghulam Mohi-ud-Din Zargar
R/O Banigam near Mirakshah Masjid,
Shalimar, Srinagar.
... Respondent(s)
Through: –
Ms Mejhabeen, Advocate.
CORAM: HON’BLE MR JUSTICE SHAHZAD AZEEM, JUDGE.
(ORDER)
01. The Applicant/ Petitioner is seeking review of Order dated 17 th
of December, 2024, whereby both the clubbed Petitions, being CRM (M)
No. 394/2023 and CRM (M) No. 374/2023, were dismissed for non-
compliance of Order dated 9 August, 2023, in pursuance of which the
Petitioner was directed to deposit Rs. 2.40 lacs minus Rs. 50,000/-, the
amount already deposited by him before the Trial Court.
02. The ground of review mainly proceeds on the premise that the
Trial Court has directed the Petitioner to deposit 20% of the cheque amount
which comes to Rs. 1.20 lacs and, out of the said amount, the Petitioner has
deposited Rs. 50,000/-. Therefore, according to Petitioner, he was only
CrlM No. 692/2025 in
CRM (M) No. 394/2023
Page 2 of 4
required to deposit the remaining amount of Rs. 70,000/- and not the
amount as ordered by this Court vide Order dated 9 August, 2023.
03. The grievance of the Petitioner is that due to miscalculation the
Court has directed the Petitioner to deposit a sum of Rs. 2.40 lacs minus the
amount of Rs. 50,000/-, which was deposited before the Trial Court,
whereas, the Petitioner was only required to deposit Rs. 70,000/- as was
directed by the Trial Court.
04. It is further contended that an application was also moved by
the Petitioner seeking clarification of Order dated 9 August, 2023, but,
without considering that application, the Order under review dated 17 th of
December, 2024 has been passed, whereby both the Petitions have been
dismissed.
05. The Non-Applicant/ Respondent has filed Objections to the
instant review application, however, for the reasons to follow, same need
not to be delved at this stage and, if need arises, will be taken note of at the
appropriate stage.
06. Heard. Considered.
07. It appears that the Petitioner, while filing the Review
application, was oblivious of the pleadings contained in CRM (M) No.
394/2023, wherein it has been specifically pleaded by the Petitioner that the
Trial Court has directed the Petitioner to pay an amount of Rs. 1.70 lacs.
Therefore, it is completely wrong on the part of the Petitioner to contend
that he was enjoined upon to deposit Rs. 70,000/- only. The Petitioner
cannot be allowed to approbate and reprobate in view of the pleadings and
admission contained in the Petition itself. There appears to be an attempt on
the part of the Petitioner to wriggle out of his own pleadings, which is
totally impermissible.
CrlM No. 692/2025 in
CRM (M) No. 394/2023
Page 3 of 4
08. A perusal of the record further reveals that when the Petitioner
failed to get any interim Order in CRM (M) No. 374/2023, as the Court
specifically, vide Order dated 2nd of August, 2023, held that no case for
interim relief in ex-parte is made in favour of the Petitioner, he,
immediately thereafter, i.e., on 7th of August, 2023, filed another Petition
under Section 482 Cr. P. C. seeking quashing of the proceedings arising
under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, wherein he has
narrated the facts of earlier Petition also, therefore, it is on the basis of the
averments contained in CRM (M) No. 394/2023, the Order dated 9 th of
August, 2023 was passed, whereby the Petitioner was directed to deposit an
amount of Rs. 2.40 lacs minus the amount of Rs. 50,000/- already deposited
before the Trial Court. Therefore, neither the question of any clarification
arises nor is any factual or legal error found to have been committed by the
Court, while passing the Order under review.
09. The power of review is extremely narrow and limited. It
cannot be used to re-hear the matter, re-appreciate the evidence or substitute
one possible view with another. An erroneous decision, even if factually
incorrect, on deeper scrutiny, is to be corrected by a higher forum not by
review. A review is, by no means, an appeal in disguise whereby an
erroneous decision is re-heard or corrected, but it lies only when there is
patent error on the face of record.
10. On going through the record, no factual error is found to have
been committed by the Court which is required to be reviewed. Therefore,
the instant application seeking review is found to be utterly misconceived,
rather, an attempt appears to be made by the Petitioner to re-open the case,
which was closed on taking into consideration the pleadings and also non-
compliance of Order dated 9 August, 2023.
11. The plea of the Petitioner that the Order passed by the Trial
Court, whereby he was supposed to deposit the remaining amount of Rs.
CrlM No. 692/2025 in
CRM (M) No. 394/2023
Page 4 of 4
70,000/-, is to be followed by the High Court also is not only self-defeating,
but also not legally tenable. Rather, it is other way round that any Order
passed by the High Court is required to be followed by the Trial Court. If
the plea of the Petitioner were to be accepted, it would result in a
hierarchical shift of supervisory jurisdiction from the High Court to the
Trial Court, which is against the mandate of Constitutional scheme.
12. For the foregoing reasons, no mistake or error apparent on the
face of the record is found to have been committed by the Court, while
passing the Order dated 17th of December, 2024. Accordingly, the instant
application is found to be grossly misconceived and same is, accordingly,
dismissed.
13. Trial Court to proceed with the matter in accordance with law.
14. Registry to send a copy of this Order to the Trial Court for
information.
(SHAHZAD AZEEM)
JUDGE
SRINAGAR
July 27th, 2026
“TAHIR”
i. Whether the Order is approved for reporting? Yes/ No.
Tahir Manzoor Bhat
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this
document
