Dismissed¶25

Tafazul Fazili v. Sabzar Ahmad Bandh

J&K HC11 Dec 2025CRM(M)/777/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Keywords: Section 143A NI Act interim compensation order — intermediate, not interlocutory; Section 528 BNSS inherent jurisdiction — maintainability; alternate and efficacious remedy; revision petition before Sessions Court against Magistrate's Section 143A order; Section 438(2) BNSS interlocutory orders; Section 138 NI Act complaint; cheque dishonour of Rs. 61,00,000/-; interim compensation of Rs. 6,10,000/- (10%); petition dismissed in limine; CRM (M)/CrlM; Special Mobile Magistrate PT & E Srinagar; counsel relied on Rakesh Ranjan Srivastava v. State of Jharkhand, 2024 SCC Online 309.

What did the court decide?

No substantive relief; the petitioner is accorded liberty to avail the alternate and efficacious remedy available to him (challenge in revision before the Sessions Court). ¶25

Tafazul Fazili Vs Sabzar Ahmad Bandh — Cheque Dishonour | J&K HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

No substantive relief; the petitioner is accorded liberty to avail the alternate and efficacious remedy available to him (challenge in revision before the Sessions Court).

¶25

Issue for consideration

Whether the order impugned — passed on an application under Section 143A of the Negotiable Instruments Act — is final, intermediate or interlocutory. +1 more

¶21

Court's answer

Governing test: an order which culminates the criminal proceedings as a whole or finally decides the rights and liabilities of the parties is not interlocutory, even though passed during the interlocutory stage; the interlocutory category is that envisaged in Section 438(2) BNSS.

¶21

Ratio / Principle

An order passed on an application under Section 143A of the Negotiable Instruments Act is not an interlocutory order but an intermediate order; the application being filed and closed under that provision determines the rights and liabilities of the parties qua the application, and a revision petition before the Court of Sessions against such order (allowing or rejecting it) is maintainable for the aggrieved party, be it complainant or accused.

¶23

Key takeaways

The petitioner, having not chosen the alternate and efficacious remedy of a revision petition before the Sessions Court and having directly come to the High Court invoking its inherent jurisdiction, cannot maintain this petition; it is not maintainable in view of the alternate efficacious remedy.ratio¶24

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh at Srinagar (M. A. Chowdhary, J.), CRM (M) No. 777/2025, decided 11.12.2025: An order passed on an application under Section 143A of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 for interim compensation is an intermediate order, not an interlocutory order, because the filing and closing of the application determines the rights and liabilities of the parties qua the application; such an order is open to challenge in a revision petition before the Court of Sessions by complainant or accused alike. A petition under Section 528 BNSS directly assailing such a Magisterial order, without availing that alternate and efficacious remedy, is misconceived and was dismissed in limine, with liberty reserved to pursue the revisional remedy. The Supreme Court decision in Rakesh Ranjan Srivastava v. State of Jharkhand, 2024 SCC Online 309, was pressed into service by counsel for the petitioner; the Court did not adjudicate the merits of the impugned interim-compensation order.

¶1

Serial No. 67 Supplementary-1 Cause List

¶2

HIGH COURT OF JAMMU& KASHMIR AND LADAKH ATSRINAGAR

¶3

[Through Virtual Mode]

¶4

CRM (M) No. 777/2025 CrlM No. 1951/2025

¶5

Tafazul Fazili

¶6

… Petitioner(s)

¶7

Through: - Mr Umar Mir, Advocate.

¶8

V/s

¶9

Sabzar Ahmad Bandh

¶10

… Respondents

¶11

CORAM:

¶12

HON’BLEMR JUSTICE M. A. CHOWDHARY, JUDGE (ORDER)

¶13

11.12.2025

¶14

01. The Petitioner, through the medium of the instant Petition filed under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, seeks quashment of Order dated 7^th of March, 2025 passed by the Court of learned Special Mobile Magistrate, PT & E, Srinagar in the Complaint filed by the Complainant/ Respondent herein under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (for short “the N. I. Act”) titled ‘Sabzar Ahmad Bandh v. Tafazul Fazili ’, whereby the learned Trial Magistrate has ordered interim relief to the tune of 10% of the amount involved in the cheques in question, i.e., Rs. 6,10,000/- (rupees six lacs and ten thousand only), in favour of the Complainant/ Respondent herein.

¶15

02. From the perusal of the file, it appears that the Respondent herein, on 23^rd of August, 2022, filed a Complaint against the Petitioner under Section 138 of the N. I. Act, wherein he alleged dishonour of cheques amounting to Rs. 61,00,000/- lacs (rupees sixty-one lacs only). Alongside the aforesaid Complaint, the Respondent had also moved anapplication seeking invocation of powers vested under Section 143A of the N. I. Act for

¶16

CRM (M) No. 777/2025;

¶17

CrlM No. 1951/2025 Page 2 of 3

¶18

directing the accused/ Petitioner herein to pay 20% of the amount involved in the cheques. It is in the said application the learned Trial Magistrate has passed the Order impugned, thereby directing the Petitioner to pay compensation to the tune of Rs. 6,10,000/- (rupees six lacs and ten thousand only) in favour of the Complainant/ Respondent herein.

¶19

03. Learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioner submits that the Order impugned lacks any reasoned justification for directing payment of 10% interim compensation under Section 143A of the N. I. Act, as such, rendering the same arbitrary and unsustainable. He further submits that the said provision of law empowers the concerned Magistrate to order interim compensation in a manner as it may deem appropriate with the application of judicial mind, supported by reasons and also keeping in view the mandate of law as laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. In support of his contentions, the learned Counsel for the Petitioner has referred to and relied upon the Judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in a case titled ‘Rakesh Ranjan Srivastava V. State of Jharkhand; 2024 SCC Online 309 ’.

¶20

04. Heard learned Counsel for the Petitioner and perused the pleadings on record.

¶21

05. The petitioner has directly come to this Court to assail the order passed by the Magistrate. It is to be seen as to whether the petitioner had no other alternate and efficacious remedy. For this purpose, it is to be seen as to whether the order impugned is final, intermediate or interlocutory. The principle governing the subject, is that if the order under challenge culminates the criminal proceedings as a whole or finally decides the rights and liabilities of the parties, then order passed is not interlocutory, in spite of the fact that it was passed during the interlocutory stage. The feasible test is that after considering the objections raised by the party, it would result in culminating the proceedings, if so, any such order passed on such objections would not be merely interlocutory in nature as envisaged in Section 438(2) BNSS.

¶22

CRM (M) No. 777/2025; CrlM No. 1951/2025 Page 3 of 3

¶23

06. The order passed on an application filed under Section 143A of the Negotiable Instruments Act is not interlocutory order but an intermediate order, as the application is filed and the application is closed, under the said provision determining the rights and liabilities of the parties, qua the application and revision petition before the Court of Sessions qua order passed by the learned Magistrate under Section 143 A either allowing the application or rejecting it, would be maintainable for the aggrieved party, be it complainant or the accused, who approach.

¶24

07. In the backdrop of what has been stated hereinabove, it is held that after hearing both the sides on an application moved under Section 143 A of the Act, the order passed thereon is not an interlocutory order but an intermediate order which can be subjected to challenge in a revision petition before the Sessions Court. The petitioner has not chosen alternate and efficacious remedy and has directly come to this court invoking the inherent jurisdiction of this court. As such, this petition is not maintainable in view of alternate efficacious remedy.

¶25

08. Having regard to the aforesaid discussion, the petition is found to be misconceived and is liable to be dismissed. The petition, is thus, dismissed in limine . The petitioner, however, shall be at liberty to avail the alternate and efficacious remedy available to him.

¶26

(M.A Chowdhary) Judge

¶27

Srinagar 15.12.2025 Raj Kumar

Tafazul Fazili v. Sabzar Ahmad Bandh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Tafazul Fazili v. Sabzar Ahmad Bandh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mushtaq Ahmad Wani and Ors. Vs Mr. B.V.R. Subramanian and Others

Bilal Ahmad Dar Vs Shahnawaz Ahmad Bhat

Mushtaq Ahmad Wani and Ors. Vs Arun Kumar Mehta Chief Secretary to the Union Territory of J and K and Ors.

Tajamul Shafi Sheikh Vs Union Territory of J and K and Another. (Home Department)

Dilshada Bano Vs Secretary to Government and Ors. (School Education)

Sheikh Waheed Shafi Vs Inderjit Singh