High Court
Case Details
Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC:147535 Court No. - 81 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 483 No. - 1622 of 2024 Applicant :- Chhama Enterprises Through Its Proprietor Chhama Agrawal Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Om Prakash Shukla Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Manoj Bajaj,J. Applicant has approached this Court through this application under Section 483 Code of Criminal Procedure for issuance of directions to the Additional Court, Varanasi to expedite and conclude the proceedings of Case No. 36579 of 2024, under Section 138 Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, District Varanasi, in a stipulated period. Learned counsel for applicant has argued that in a business transaction, the opposite party o.2 had issued a cheque in favour of the applicant and on presentation, the same had dishonored on 27.2.2024, whereupon the subject complaint has been filed on
Legal Reasoning
7.5.2024 and the same is pending adjudication. Learned counsel submits that keeping in view the nature of the offence, it would be in the interest of justice, if, the pending complaint is directed to be expedited and adjudicated in a specific time frame. He prays that only for this limited indulgence, the applicant has craved the indulgence of this Court. During the course of hearing, it is not disputed by learned counsel that the process against the accused was issued by the Special Chief Judicial Magistrate, Varanasi vide order dated 6.8.2024, and when confronted with the maintainability of the application, in the absence of a valid cause of action, learned counsel insists that since the dispute between the parties is commercial in nature, therefore, in the light of the provisions of Section 143(3) Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, it would be in the interest of the complainant-applicant, if, the pending proceedings are directed to be concluded in near future. At this stage, learned counsel for applicant was again confronted with the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of High Court Bar Association, Allahabad vs. State of U.P. and others, passed in (Special Leave Petition (Crl.) Nos. 13284-13289 of 2023, wherein it has been observed that constitutional courts should refrain from fixing a particular time frame for concluding the trial. However, in response, learned counsel vehemently argued that once the statutory provision provides for a specific time frame to conclude the trial, the said mandate of law has to be followed. He reiterates his prayer for expediting the trial proceedings. Upon hearing the learned counsel for applicant and considering his submissions, this Court finds that while issuing process against the accused vide order dated 6.8.2024, the case has been fixed for 8.10.2024. The background of the case would show that the complainant-applicant has shown undue haste in approaching this Court for issuance of directions to expedite the trial proceedings, without even waiting for a reasonable period and has relied upon the provisions of Section 143(3) Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, which only contemplates that an endevour by the trial court be made to conclude the trial within a period of six months. Concededly, in the present case, neither the trial has commenced as the accused is yet to appear, nor even after filing of the complaint on 7.5.2024, period of six months has elapsed. That apart, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in High Court Bar Association, Allahabad (Supra) has categorically held that constitutional courts should refrain from fixing a time frame for conclusion of trial. The relevant observations reads as under:- "31. The situation in Trial and district Courts is even worse. In 2002, in the case of All India Judges' Association & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors. (2002) 4 SCC 247, this Court passed an order directing that the judge-to- population ratio within twenty years should be 50 per million. Even as of today, we are not able to reach the ratio of even 25 per million. The directions issued in the case of Imtiyaz Ahmed v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors. (2017) 3 SCC 658 have not been complied with by the States by increasing the Judge strength of the Trial and District Courts. The figures of pendency of cases in our trial Courts are staggering. There are different categories of cases which, by their very nature, are required to be given utmost priority, such as the cases of the accused in jail and the cases of senior citizens. For example, there are many legislations like the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 etc which prescribe specific time limits for the disposal of cases. However, due to the huge filing and pendency, our Courts cannot conclude the trials within the time provided by the statutes. There is a provision in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, in the form of Section 309, which requires criminal cases to be heard on a day-to-day basis once the recording of evidence commences. The same Section provides that in case of certain serious offences against women, the cases must be decided within two months of filing the charge sheet. Unfortunately, our Criminal Courts are not in a position to implement the said provision. Apart from dealing with huge arrears, our Trial Courts face the challenge of dealing with a large number of cases made time-bound by our constitutional Courts. Therefore, in the ordinary course, the constitutional Courts should not exercise the power to direct the disposal of a case before any District or Trial Court within a time span. In many cases, while rejecting a bail petition, a time limit is fixed for disposal of trial on the ground that the petitioner has undergone incarceration for a long time without realising that the concerned trial Court may have many pending cases where the accused are in jail for a longer period. The same logic will apply to the cases pending before the High Courts. When we exercise such power of directing High Courts to decide cases in a time-bound manner, we are not aware of the exact position of pendency of old cases in the said Courts, which require priority to be given. Bail petitions remain pending for a long time. There are appeals against conviction pending where the appellants have been denied bail. 32. Therefore, constitutional Courts should not normally fix a time-bound schedule for disposal of cases pending in any Court. The pattern of pendency of various categories of cases pending in every Court, including High Courts, is different. The situation at the grassroots level is better known to the judges of the concerned Courts. Therefore, the issue of giving out-of- turn priority to certain cases should be best left to the concerned Courts. The orders fixing the outer limit for the disposal of cases should be passed only in exceptional circumstances to meet extraordinary situations. 33. There is another important reason for adopting the said approach. Not every litigant can easily afford to file proceedings in the constitutional Courts. Those litigants who can afford to approach the constitutional Courts cannot be allowed to take undue advantage by getting an order directing out- of-turn disposal of their cases while all other litigants patiently wait in the queue for their turn to come. The Courts, superior in the judicial hierarchy, cannot interfere with the day-to-day functioning of the other Courts by directing that only certain cases should be decided out of turn within a time frame…...xxxxxx….." In view of above discussion, this Court has no hesitation in holding that the complainant-applicant has unnecessarily filed this application, which is not based upon a valid cause of action, therefore, the applicant deserves to be burdened with exemplary cost. Resultantly, the application fails and is hereby dismissed with costs of Rs.25,000/- to be deposited within one month before the Registrar General, High Court Allahabad, who will, thereafter, forward the same to the High Court Legal Services Committee. Order Date :- 10.9.2024 P.S.Parihar