Jammu & Kashmir High Court – Srinagar Bench
Waseem Hassan Malik vs Reyaz Ahmad Lone on 10 March, 2026
Serial No. 95
Regular Cause List
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH
AT SRINAGAR
CrlM(689/2025) IN CrlA(AS) 19/2025
WASEEM HASSAN MALIK ...Petitioner(s)/Appellant(s).
Through: Mr. Rafiq Bhat, Advocate
Vs.
REYAZ AHMAD LONE ...Respondent(s).
Through: None
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MOHD YOUSUF WANI, JUDGE
ORDER
10.03.2026
1. There is no representation on the part of the respondent.
2. As per the Registry’s note dated 29.07.2025, the notice issued by the
Registry under No. 12549 stands delivered to the respondent on
16.06.2025, as per the tracking repot.
3. Ex-parte proceedings are initiated against the respondent.
4. Through the medium of the instant acquittal appeal, the appellant seeks
the setting aside of the order dated 20.02.2025 passed by the learned
Court of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bandipora, in a complaint filed
under the provisions of Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act
and titled as “Waseem Hassan Malik Vs. Reyaz Ahmad Lone”, bearing
File No. 70/2023, on the main ground that the said order of dismissal of
the complaint, having the effect of acquittal of the respondent/accused,
suffers from illegality and perversity.
5. I have heard learned counsel for the appellant/complainant and
considered his submissions.
6. Perused the memo of the instant acquittal appeal. Also perused the
record of the dismissed complaint, especially the order dated 20.02.2025,
whereby the complaint was dismissed for non-prosecution. The perusal
of the impugned dismissal order dated 20.02.2025 reveals that none of
the parties were present before the trial court on that day. It is borne out
from the minutes of the proceedings on the trial court file that the present
appellant/complainant was fully represented during a series of preceding
dates of hearing. The learned Magistrate ought to have waited for at least
one or two hearings before dismissing the complaint. Since none of the
parties was reportedly present on 20.02.2025 at the trial proceedings, as
such, no prejudice is supposed to have been caused to the other side on
that day.
7. The Court is in agreement with the decision of this Court dated
24.11.2017, passed under similar circumstances in case titled “Vijay
Kumar Sharma Vs. Ramesh Kumar“, 2017 Legal Eagle (J&K) 692, to
the effect of setting aside of the dismissal order of a complaint for non-
prosecution.
8. In the backdrop, this Court is of the opinion that it may meet the ends of
justice in case the present appeal is allowed and the impugned order of
dismissal of complaint dated 20.02.2025 is set aside.
9. It is accordingly ordered.
10.The learned trial court is directed to proceed further on the complaint in
accordance with the law.
11.Disposed of.
(MOHD YOUSUF WANI)
JUDGE
SRINAGAR
10.03.2026
ARIF