9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2025 (5) TMI 1000 - HC - Indian LawsSeeking expeditious disposal of cases under Negotiable Instruments Act 1881 - application under Section 483 Cr.P.C./Now Section 529 of Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita 2023 - Complaint under section 137 - statutory provision of Sections 143(2) and 143(3) of the N.I. Act - HELD THAT -Considering the judgement of Apex Court in the case of Indian Bank Association and others vs. Union of India and Others 2014 (5) TMI 750 - SUPREME COURT the trial court is directed to conclude the trial of Complaint Case No. 1113 of 2017 (New No. 867 of 2024) under Section 137 of the Negotiable Instruments Act 1881 (Amrendra Pratap Singh Vs. Lal Bahadur) Police Station Kotwali Nagar District Sultanpur keeping in mind the direction of the Apex Court in above mentioned cases expeditiously preferably within a period of six months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order strictly in accordance with statutory provision of Sections 143(2) and 143(3) of the N.I. Act if there is no legal impediment. It is also directed to the concerned court that for ensuring the presence of accused during trial it should not hesitate to take coercive measures provided under Cr.P.C. With the aforesaid direction the application is disposed of.
1. ISSUES PRESENTED and CONSIDERED
The core legal questions considered by the Court are:
2. ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS Issue 1: Direction for Expeditious Disposal of Pending Trial under Section 137 N.I. Act Relevant legal framework and precedents: The proceedings relate to a complaint under Section 137 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, which deals with the dishonour of cheques. Sections 138 and 143 of the Act impose procedural requirements, including the mandate that trials should be conducted on a day-to-day basis and concluded within six months from the date of filing the complaint (Section 143(2) and (3)). The Apex Court's ruling in Indian Bank Association v. Union of India (2014) and In Re: Expeditious Trial of Cases under Section 138 N.I. Act (2021) provide authoritative directions for speedy disposal of such cases. These judgments emphasize minimizing delays and avoiding unnecessary technicalities. Court's interpretation and reasoning: The Court noted that the trial has been pending since 2017 without conclusion, which is contrary to the statutory mandate and judicial directives. The Court underscored the importance of adhering to the timelines prescribed under Sections 143(2) and (3) of the N.I. Act and reiterated that the trial must be conducted expeditiously. Key evidence and findings: The record shows prolonged pendency of the complaint case, despite the statutory and judicial framework mandating prompt disposal. The Court relied on the material on record and submissions of counsel to confirm the delay. Application of law to facts: Applying the statutory provisions and Apex Court directions, the Court found it appropriate to direct the trial court to conclude the trial preferably within six months from the date of receipt of the certified copy of the present order. Treatment of competing arguments: While the applicant argued for expeditious disposal, the Court did not find any legal impediment or justification for delay. The Court emphasized that unnecessary technicalities should not be entertained to prolong the trial. Conclusion: The Court directed the trial court to conclude the pending trial expeditiously, in strict compliance with statutory timelines and Apex Court directions. Issue 2: Procedural Directions for Conducting Trials under Section 138 N.I. Act Relevant legal framework and precedents: The Apex Court's judgment in Indian Bank Association v. Union of India (2014) laid down detailed procedural directions for Magistrates handling Section 138 complaints, including scrutiny of complaints on the day of filing, issuance of summons, pragmatic approach to service, fixation of short dates, and conducting examination-in-chief, cross-examination, and re-examination within three months. Similarly, the 2021 Apex Court judgment reiterated the need for Magistrates to record reasons before converting summary trials into summons trials, permitted evidence on affidavit during inquiry, and emphasized the need for practice directions to ensure expeditious disposal. Court's interpretation and reasoning: The Court observed that these directions are binding and must be followed by the trial court to ensure speedy justice. The Court stressed that the trial court should adopt a pragmatic approach, avoid unnecessary adjournments, and utilize procedural tools such as affidavits to expedite proceedings. Key evidence and findings: The Court noted the delay in the present case despite the availability of procedural mechanisms to avoid such delays. Application of law to facts: The Court directed the trial court to strictly adhere to the procedural directions issued by the Apex Court, including day-to-day trial conduct and timely examination of witnesses. Treatment of competing arguments: The Court did not entertain any arguments justifying deviation from the procedural mandate, emphasizing the legislative and judicial intent to prevent protracted litigation in cheque dishonour cases. Conclusion: The trial court is mandated to follow the procedural directions for expeditious disposal as laid down by the Apex Court judgments. Issue 3: Use of Coercive Measures to Ensure Presence of Accused Relevant legal framework: The Criminal Procedure Code (Cr.P.C.) provides various coercive measures to ensure the presence of accused persons during trial, including issuance of warrants and other enforcement actions. Court's interpretation and reasoning: The Court directed that the trial court should not hesitate to invoke coercive measures under the Cr.P.C. to secure the attendance of the accused, thereby preventing further delay in trial proceedings. Application of law to facts: Given the prolonged pendency and the necessity of the accused's presence for expeditious trial, the Court emphasized the trial court's discretion and duty to employ such measures. Conclusion: The trial court is authorized and directed to take coercive steps under Cr.P.C. to ensure the accused's presence and facilitate speedy trial. 3. SIGNIFICANT HOLDINGS "From the above mentioned judgements of Hon'ble Apex Court, it is clear that the Apex Court for expeditious disposal of cases under N.I. Act, has issued several directions which the concerned court/Magistrate has to follow while deciding the cases under N.I. Act." "Considering the aforesaid judgements, the trial court is directed to conclude the trial ... keeping in mind the direction of the Apex Court ... expeditiously preferably within a period of six months ... strictly in accordance with statutory provision of Sections 143(2) and 143(3) of the N.I. Act, if there is no legal impediment." "It is also directed to the concerned court that for ensuring the presence of accused during trial, it should not hesitate to take coercive measures provided under Cr.P.C." The Court thus established the core principles that:
|
