2025 (5) TMI 1738 - HC - Indian Laws

Dishonour of cheques - Procedural conduct and expeditious disposal of a criminal complaint filed under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act 1881 - Whether applicant has pointed out any exceptional circumstance warranting direction to the trial Court to decide the criminal complaint filed under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act on an early date or not? - HELD THAT - Various order-sheets of the trial court and the orders passed by the High Court have already been referred to above. Thus it is clear that the right of respondent to lead defence evidence has already been closed. Respondent is trying very hard to get the matter adjourned by hook or crook. Under these circumstances this Court is of considered opinion that applicant has successfully established that the case in hand falls under the category of exceptional circumstances. Accordingly it is directed that the trial Court must decide the complaint filed under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act within one month from today. Applicant is directed to immediately file copy of this order before the trial Court for necessary information and compliance. It is made clear that no adjournment shall be granted by the trial Court to respondent for final arguments. Whatever applications are filed shall be decided on the very same day and the final arguments shall be positively heard on the next date which will be fixed by the trial Court. With aforesaid observation the application is disposed of.

Summary

The primary legal issues considered by the Court revolve around the procedural conduct and expeditious disposal of a criminal complaint filed under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. The core questions include: whether the respondent's repeated attempts to delay the proceedings, despite closure of their right to lead defence evidence, justify directions for expedited trial; whether exceptional circumstances exist to warrant the High Court's intervention in fixing a time-bound schedule for disposal of the case; and the extent of the trial court's discretion in granting adjournments and entertaining applications filed by the accused at the final stages of trial.

Regarding the procedural conduct and closure of defence evidence, the Court examined the trial court's order dated 12.07.2024, which closed the accused's right to lead defence evidence due to non-appearance of defence witnesses and rejection of adjournment requests. This order was affirmed by the High Court in M.Cr.C. No.35990/2024 dated 27.03.2025. The respondent nonetheless persisted in filing multiple applications under various provisions, including Sections 45 and 47 of the Evidence Act and Section 311 of the CrPC, seeking to summon additional witnesses and documents at advanced trial stages. These applications were repeatedly rejected by the trial court and revisional courts, culminating in dismissal of the respondent's Criminal Revision No.140/2025 dated 01.05.2025.

The Court's analysis drew heavily on the Supreme Court's precedent in the High Court Bar Association, Allahabad case, which cautioned against routine imposition of time-bound schedules by constitutional courts for case disposal, emphasizing that such directions should be reserved for exceptional circumstances. Applying this principle, the Court scrutinized the trial court's order-sheets and the history of adjournments and applications filed by the respondent. It found that the respondent's conduct amounted to deliberate and persistent attempts to delay the proceedings, despite the closure of defence evidence and judicial directions to proceed with final arguments.

In applying the law to the facts, the Court concluded that the circumstances of the case constitute an exceptional situation warranting intervention. The respondent's repeated failure to advance final arguments and the filing of numerous dilatory applications justified a directive to the trial court to conclude the matter expeditiously. The Court accordingly directed the trial court to decide the complaint within one month from the date of the order and prohibited any further adjournments for final arguments. It mandated that all applications henceforth be decided on the same day they are filed, with final arguments to be heard on the next date fixed by the trial court.

The Court treated the competing arguments of the respondent-primarily their requests for adjournments and additional evidence-as attempts to circumvent the closure of defence evidence and delay trial completion. These were rejected on the basis of procedural propriety and judicial economy, reinforcing the principle that a party cannot abuse procedural mechanisms to prolong litigation unjustifiably.

Significant holdings include the Court's explicit recognition that "the right of respondent to lead defence evidence has already been closed" and that the respondent "is trying very hard to get the matter adjourned by hook or crook." The Court emphasized the exceptional nature of the case by stating: "applicant has successfully established that the case in hand falls under the category of exceptional circumstances," thereby justifying the imposition of a strict timeline for disposal.

The Court preserved the Supreme Court's authoritative guidance by quoting: "constitutional Courts should not normally fix a time-bound schedule for disposal of cases... The orders fixing the outer limit for the disposal of cases should be passed only in exceptional circumstances to meet extraordinary situations." This principle was pivotal in balancing judicial restraint with the need to prevent abuse of process.

Ultimately, the Court's final determinations were:

• The trial court's closure of the accused's right to lead defence evidence is valid and affirmed.
• The respondent's repeated applications and adjournment requests constitute dilatory tactics and are to be rejected.
• The case qualifies as an exceptional circumstance warranting a direction for expeditious disposal.
• The trial court is directed to decide the complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act within one month.
• No further adjournments for final arguments shall be granted to the respondent; all applications must be decided on the same day.