The High Court dismissed the appellant's petition seeking quashing of a Section 138 NI Act case under Article 227 of the Constitution, holding that supervisory jurisdiction does not permit the Court to appreciate evidence in an ongoing trial where the final judgment is yet to come.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
S. No. 73 Suppl Cause List-2
IN THE HIGH COURT 0F JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH AT SRINAGAR
CM(M) 384/2026 CM(5645/2026)
BILAL AHMAD DAR
…Appellant(s)/Petitioner(s)
Through: Mr. Ishtiyaq Ahmad Mir, Advocate
Vs.
MUHAMMAD SHAFI JAN
...Respondent(s)
Through:
CORAM:
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAHUL BHARTI, JUDGE ORDER 29.08.2026
1. The petitioner is a willing participant as an accused in an ongoing criminal case by reference to Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments (NI) Act, 1881 initiated by the respondent before the court of Judicial Magistrate 1st Class (City
Judge), Srinagar.
2. In said complaint case, not only the respondent, as a complainant, has led evidence from his end but even the petitioner has led evidence in defense from his end.
3. While the case is poised for final hearing in terms of an order dated 29.07.2026 closing the right of the petitioner to lead further evidence, the
petitioner has come forward with the present petition invoking supervisory jurisdiction of this Court under article 227 of the Constitution of India for quashment of the criminal case as if jurisdiction under article 227 of the Constitution of India is meant to undertake appreciation of evidence in an original criminal case in which final judgment is yet to come from the trial court.
4. The petitioner has been misadvised to invoke jurisdiction of this Court in the context of facts and circumstances of the case, as such, the petition is not entertained and is, accordingly, dismissed.
5. The dismissal of this petition shall not be reckoned in any manner prejudicial to the case of the petitioner as an accused before the trial court.
6. Dismissed along with connected CM.
(RAHUL BHARTI) JUDGE
Srinagar
29.08.2026 “Imtiyaz”
Imtiyaz Ul Gani I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document
01.09.2026 15:53
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the High Court can exercise supervisory jurisdiction under article 227 of the Constitution of India to appreciate evidence in an ongoing criminal trial where final judgment has not been delive
Whether a criminal proceeding under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act can be quashed before the trial court completes its final hearing.
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Bilal Ahmad Dar
Muhammad Shafi Jan
Rahul Bharti
As recorded by the court registry
A petition under Article 227 of the Constitution invoking the High Court's supervisory jurisdiction over subordinate civil courts.
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
