High Court · 2025

Court No. - 12 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 483 No. - 363 of 2025 Applicant :- Saai Associate House No. 931 Thru. Its Proprietor Sri Radhe Shyam Singh Opposite Party :- Addl. Court No. 7 Lko. And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Kailash Chandra,Vivek Kumar Mishra Hon'ble Alok Mathur,J.

1. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

2. It has been submitted that the applicant/complainant Shri Radhe Shyam Singh s/o Prabhu Nath Singh, r/o village Gyanpur, post Dhanauti, District Baliya (U.P.) is performing the business and work under the firm "Saai Associate", House No.931, Sector – 55 Faridabad, Hariyana. Opposite party no.2 is performing construction work under the firm of M/S Reliable constructions", First floor, 3146/7, Mohalla Dassan Hauz Qazi, New Delhi, 110006 which is registered as the form of GST REG – 6 bearing registration Number : 07 AJGPK4981PIZH.

3. The opposite party no.2 had made proposal to the applicant/complainant for taking work from M/S Sterlite Technologies Limited, Registered OfÏce No.301-302, Shreyas Heights, Plot No.95, East High Court road Ramdaspath, Nagpur, Maharashtra and the deal was decided between the applicant/complainant and opposite party no.2 that both parties will invest the money in the work and after completion of work and final payment, the consideration benefit will be divided into half- half shares out of applicant/complainant had agreed to work with the opposite party no.2. entire benefits and accordingly,

4. As per terms and conditions above the opposite party no.2 had taken work from M/S Sterlite Technologies Limited, Registered ofÏce No.301-302, Shreyas Heights, Plot No.95, East High Court Road Ramdaspath, Nagpur, Maharashtra. The work had been assigned as work of OFC. The same had taken place at Tehsil Mukhed, District Nonded, Maharashtra. Applicant/complainant had paid money time to time in the account of the opposite party no.2. The total amount paid was Rs.4,90,000/- by the applicant/complainant in account of opposite party no.2. After completion of work all the payment was done by the aforesaid Firm M/S Sterlite Technologies Limited but the opposite party no.2 has not made any payment to the applicant/complainant as per conditions of the deal which was decided between the applicant/complainant and opposite party no.2 and opposite party no.2, thus, failed to return the amount which was given to the opposite party no.2 as well as final payment of consideration benefit of half share out of entire benefits of deal.

5. After making several requests opposite party no.2 returned Rs.30,000/- in three instalments to the complainant but remaining amount and benefit consideration was not paid. With a view to clear his liabilities towards applicant/complainant, the accused/ opposite party no.2 issued a cheque for Rs.500000/- for payment on 24.08.2021 vide cheque no."740732" bearing account no.7990002100000705 of Punjab National Bank, Branch, Surajmal Vihar Delhi – 110092. The aforesaid cheque was deposited in bank bearing account no,0000003386343447431 of State Bank of India, branch Arjunganj, Lucknow of the applicant/complainant for payment which was returned unpaid by drawee bank on 17.11.2021 for the reason " Fund InsufÏcient". Said information was given by the applicant/complainant to opposite party no.2 but no response was given by opposite party no.2. Then the applicant/complainant sent a legal notice under section 138 (b) of Negotiable Instrument Act, 1881 to the opposite party no.2 with the registered post through his counsel on 16.12.2021 but the opposite party no.2 failed to pay the cheque amount as well as other expenses which had been mentioned in the notice. Thus, it is evident that the opposite party no.2 has intentionally and mischievously issued the cheque with the knowledge that cheque would not be honoured on presentation on account of 'Fund InsufÏcient".

6. When even after sending the legal notice to the opposite party no.2 no payment was received from the opposite party no.2 then within stipulated time prescribed by law applicant/complainant filed complaint case no.4720 of 2022 [Saai Associates vs M/S Reliable Constructions, under Section 138 of NI Act, 1881 before opposite party no.1. In the aforesaid complaint case Statements under sections 200 and 202 CrPC has been recorded and also summoning order has been issued against the opposite party no.2 on 06.4.2022. Non bailable warrant was also issued against the opposite party no.2 on 11.8.2022 and thereafter several dates have been fixed since then but the case has not yet been decided till date. It is in the aforesaid circumstances that the present application has been moved for expeditious disposal of the complaint filed by the applicant.

7. In support of his submissions learned counsel for the applicant/complainant has submitted that as per Section 143 (2) of the NI Act, 1881 it has been provided that trial in this section shall be conducted as expeditiously as possible and endeavor shall be made to conclude the trial within a period of six months from the date of filing of the complaint.

8. From a bare perusal of the aforesaid provisions it is clear that undoubtedly, the trial has to be conducted expeditiously and endeavor should be made to conclude the trial within six months from the date of filing of the complaint. Aforesaid provision clearly indicates that time limit for conclusion of a trial is clearly directory and not mandatory.

9. Apart from the above, considering the aforesaid provision, we find that summons have been issued and the opposite party no.2 has not put in appearance. Lastly, on 07.11.2024 even the applicant did not appear before the trial court and accordingly apart from the aforesaid considering that in the matter summons have been issued in April, 2022, no ground for interference is made out. Also, considering that there is huge pendency in the Courts of Judicial Magistrates who have been dealing with the matters under Section 138 of N.I. Act, no direction for expediting the trial can be issued at this stage.

10. Subsequently, in case the applicant feels that the trial is unduly being delayed, liberty is granted to him to move appropriate application before the trial court itself, which shall consider and dispose of the said application with expedition whenever the same is filed.

11. Subject to aforesaid direction, the application under Section 483 Cr.P.C. stands disposed of. Order Date :- 30.4.2025 MANISH SAXENA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Court No. - 12 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 483 No. - 363 of 2025 Applicant :- Saai Associate House No. 931 Thru. Its Proprietor Sri Radhe Shyam Singh Opposite Party :- Addl. Court No. 7 Lko. And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Kailash Chandra,Vivek Kumar Mishra Hon'ble Alok Mathur,J.

1. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

2. It has been submitted that the applicant/complainant Shri Radhe Shyam Singh s/o Prabhu Nath Singh, r/o village Gyanpur, post Dhanauti, District Baliya (U.P.) is performing the business and work under the firm "Saai Associate", House No.931, Sector – 55 Faridabad, Hariyana. Opposite party no.2 is performing construction work under the firm of M/S Reliable constructions", First floor, 3146/7, Mohalla Dassan Hauz Qazi, New Delhi, 110006 which is registered as the form of GST REG – 6 bearing registration Number : 07 AJGPK4981PIZH.

3. The opposite party no.2 had made proposal to the applicant/complainant for taking work from M/S Sterlite Technologies Limited, Registered OfÏce No.301-302, Shreyas Heights, Plot No.95, East High Court road Ramdaspath, Nagpur, Maharashtra and the deal was decided between the applicant/complainant and opposite party no.2 that both parties will invest the money in the work and after completion of work and final payment, the consideration benefit will be divided into half- half shares out of applicant/complainant had agreed to work with the opposite party no.2. entire benefits and accordingly,

4. As per terms and conditions above the opposite party no.2 had taken work from M/S Sterlite Technologies Limited, Registered ofÏce No.301-302, Shreyas Heights, Plot No.95, East High Court Road Ramdaspath, Nagpur, Maharashtra. The work had been assigned as work of OFC. The same had taken place at Tehsil Mukhed, District Nonded, Maharashtra. Applicant/complainant had paid money time to time in the account of the opposite party no.2. The total amount paid was Rs.4,90,000/- by the applicant/complainant in account of opposite party no.2. After completion of work all the payment was done by the aforesaid Firm M/S Sterlite Technologies Limited but the opposite party no.2 has not made any payment to the applicant/complainant as per conditions of the deal which was decided between the applicant/complainant and opposite party no.2 and opposite party no.2, thus, failed to return the amount which was given to the opposite party no.2 as well as final payment of consideration benefit of half share out of entire benefits of deal.

5. After making several requests opposite party no.2 returned Rs.30,000/- in three instalments to the complainant but remaining amount and benefit consideration was not paid. With a view to clear his liabilities towards applicant/complainant, the accused/ opposite party no.2 issued a cheque for Rs.500000/- for payment on 24.08.2021 vide cheque no."740732" bearing account no.7990002100000705 of Punjab National Bank, Branch, Surajmal Vihar Delhi – 110092. The aforesaid cheque was deposited in bank bearing account no,0000003386343447431 of State Bank of India, branch Arjunganj, Lucknow of the applicant/complainant for payment which was returned unpaid by drawee bank on 17.11.2021 for the reason " Fund InsufÏcient". Said information was given by the applicant/complainant to opposite party no.2 but no response was given by opposite party no.2. Then the applicant/complainant sent a legal notice under section 138 (b) of Negotiable Instrument Act, 1881 to the opposite party no.2 with the registered post through his counsel on 16.12.2021 but the opposite party no.2 failed to pay the cheque amount as well as other expenses which had been mentioned in the notice. Thus, it is evident that the opposite party no.2 has intentionally and mischievously issued the cheque with the knowledge that cheque would not be honoured on presentation on account of 'Fund InsufÏcient".

6. When even after sending the legal notice to the opposite party no.2 no payment was received from the opposite party no.2 then within stipulated time prescribed by law applicant/complainant filed complaint case no.4720 of 2022 [Saai Associates vs M/S Reliable Constructions, under Section 138 of NI Act, 1881 before opposite party no.1. In the aforesaid complaint case Statements under sections 200 and 202 CrPC has been recorded and also summoning order has been issued against the opposite party no.2 on 06.4.2022. Non bailable warrant was also issued against the opposite party no.2 on 11.8.2022 and thereafter several dates have been fixed since then but the case has not yet been decided till date. It is in the aforesaid circumstances that the present application has been moved for expeditious disposal of the complaint filed by the applicant.

7. In support of his submissions learned counsel for the applicant/complainant has submitted that as per Section 143 (2) of the NI Act, 1881 it has been provided that trial in this section shall be conducted as expeditiously as possible and endeavor shall be made to conclude the trial within a period of six months from the date of filing of the complaint.

8. From a bare perusal of the aforesaid provisions it is clear that undoubtedly, the trial has to be conducted expeditiously and endeavor should be made to conclude the trial within six months from the date of filing of the complaint. Aforesaid provision clearly indicates that time limit for conclusion of a trial is clearly directory and not mandatory.

9. Apart from the above, considering the aforesaid provision, we find that summons have been issued and the opposite party no.2 has not put in appearance. Lastly, on 07.11.2024 even the applicant did not appear before the trial court and accordingly apart from the aforesaid considering that in the matter summons have been issued in April, 2022, no ground for interference is made out. Also, considering that there is huge pendency in the Courts of Judicial Magistrates who have been dealing with the matters under Section 138 of N.I. Act, no direction for expediting the trial can be issued at this stage.

10. Subsequently, in case the applicant feels that the trial is unduly being delayed, liberty is granted to him to move appropriate application before the trial court itself, which shall consider and dispose of the said application with expedition whenever the same is filed.

11. Subject to aforesaid direction, the application under Section 483 Cr.P.C. stands disposed of. Order Date :- 30.4.2025 MANISH SAXENA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench