Two cheque-dishonour prosecutions arising from a cancelled property transaction were challenged on alleged part-payment and premature filing.
Judge / Bench — Hon’ble Mr. Justice Yash Paul Bourney, Judge
The Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh High Court found no material establishing that separate electronic transfers discharged the cheque liabilities; the complainants’ detailed breakup attributed those payments to other outstanding amounts. It also rejected prematurity, reasoning that although the complaints were filed before expiry of the payment period, the period had expired when cognizance was taken, as the Court found on the record. Treating early filing as non-prejudicial in these circumstances, it upheld process and dismissed both petitions. The note records that specific reasoning; practitioners should check the judgment’s stated service, filing and cognizance dates closely rather than assume any general relaxation of statutory notice requirements.
Case — Yudhvir Singh Katoch v. Basharat Khan; connected matter · CRM(M) No. 206/2023 c/w CRM(M) No. 207/2023 · 28 October 2026 · Srinagar wing
Advocates appearing — Petitioner — Mr. Wajid Mohammad Haseeb, Advocate. Respondents in the connected complaints — Mr. S. T. Hussain, Sr. Advocate, with Ms. Nida Nazir, Advocate.