Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2023 DIGILAW 1539 (ALL)

Pashupati Alloys v. State of Uttar Pradesh

2023-06-21

VINOD DIWAKAR

body2023
JUDGMENT : (Vinod Diwakar, J.) 1. Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record. 2. The applicant has preferred the instant application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking direction for expeditious disposal of the Complaint Case No.4863 of 2022 titled M/s Pashupati Alloys Vs. Sunil Garg, filed under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, pending trial before the Court of learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, VIth, Meerut. 3. The facts leading to filing this instant application are succinct as follows: (i). M/s Pashupati Alloys filed a criminal complaint against Mr. Sunil Garg, owner of M/s Mahaveer Ispat Udyog, regarding dishonour of the cheque dated 30.4.2020 amounting to Rs.10,00,000/-. (ii). The criminal complaint was filed on 13.8.2020 before the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate-Vth, Meerut. (iii). Learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate-Vth, Meerut summoned the accused- Sunil Garg, vide order dated 16.3.2021 and on presentation of bail bond, granted bail vide order dated 3.12.2021. (iv). Learned trial court recorded the statement under Section 254 Cr.P.C. and listed the case for the recording of evidence. 4. Since 13.8.2020, the case has been pending trial before the learned trial court, and despite being listed 33 times, no effective hearing was conducted. Out of these 33 instances, the trial court issued bailable warrants against the accused five times on 26.8.2021, 13.10.2021, 29.10.2021, 10.11.2021, and 26.11.2021. Additionally, non-bailable warrants were issued a total of 11 times on 24.5.2022, 24.6.2022, 1.12.2022, 12.12.2022, 5.1.2023, 17.1.2023, 2.2.2023, 17.2.2023, 2.3.2023, 28.3.2023, and 11.4.2023. During this period, the trial court also imposed costs of Rs. 300, Rs. 500, and Rs. 1000 on the accused on 20.4.2022, 7.7.2022, and 20.9.2022, respectively. 5. The applicant, aggrieved by the fact that the trial court conducted no effective hearing, has preferred the instant application seeking early or timebound disposal of the case. 6. Before I advert to the relief sought by the applicant, it is prudent to refer to some of the judgments passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court regarding the expeditious hearing of criminal complaints filed under the Negotiable Instruments Act. Additionally, before seeking the assistance of the judgments passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court for the expeditious and early disposal of cases related to the dishonour of cheques, it is appropriate to consider sections 143 to 147 and 138 of the Act, Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. 7. Additionally, before seeking the assistance of the judgments passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court for the expeditious and early disposal of cases related to the dishonour of cheques, it is appropriate to consider sections 143 to 147 and 138 of the Act, Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. 7. The relevant portion of section 143(3) is extracted herein below: “Every trial under this section shall be conducted as expeditiously as possible, and an endeavour shall be made to conclude the trial within six months from the date of filing of the complaint." 8. Section 143(A) states that the Court trying an offence under section 138 has the authority to order the drawer of the cheque to pay interim compensation to the complainant. The interim compensation must be paid within 60 days from the date of the order under sub-section (1) of section 143(A). However, if the Court deems it necessary, it may extend this period by up to 30 days upon a sufficient cause shown by the drawer of the cheque. 9. Upon a closer examination of section 145 of the Act1, it becomes evident that both sub-sections 1 and 2 are enforceable within the bounds of the legal procedure and empower the Court to record evidence on the affidavit. Similarly, section 146 allows the Court to presume the fact of dishonour of cheques based on the presentation of the bank slip or evidence of an error on the slip. No official remark denoting that the cheque has been dishonoured can be considered valid until and unless such a fact is disproved. 10. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Indian Bank Association and others Vs. Union of India and others, (2014) 5 SCC 590 , observed that the Amendment Act, 2002 has to be given effect to it in letter and spirit and hence issued the following directions:- “23. 10. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Indian Bank Association and others Vs. Union of India and others, (2014) 5 SCC 590 , observed that the Amendment Act, 2002 has to be given effect to it in letter and spirit and hence issued the following directions:- “23. Many of the directions given by the various High Courts, in our view, are worthy of emulation by the Criminal Courts all over the country dealing with cases under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, for which the following directions are being given: 23.1 The Metropolitan Magistrate/Judicial Magistrate (MM/JM), on the day when the complaint under Section 138 of the Act is presented, shall scrutinize the complaint and, if the complaint is accompanied by the affidavit, and the affidavit and the documents, if any, are found to be in order, take cognizance and direct issuance of summons. 23.2 The MM/JM should adopt a pragmatic and realistic approach while issuing summons. Summons must be properly addressed and sent by post as well as by e-mail address got from the complainant. The Court, in appropriate cases, may take the assistance of the police or the nearby Court to serve notice on the accused. For notice of appearance, a short date be fixed. If the summons is received back un-served, immediate follow- up action be taken. 23.3 The Court may indicate in the summons that if the accused makes an application for compounding of offences at the first hearing of the case and, if such an application is made, the Court may pass appropriate orders at the earliest. 23.4 The Court should direct the accused, when he appears to furnish a bail bond, to ensure his appearance during trial and ask him to take notice under Section 251 Cr.P.C. to enable him to enter his plea of defence and fix the case for defence evidence, unless an application is made by the accused under Section 145(2) for re-calling a witness for cross-examination. 23.5 The Court concerned must ensure that examination-in-chief, cross-examination and re-examination of the complainant must be conducted within three months of assigning the case. The Court has option of accepting affidavits of the witnesses, instead of examining them in the Court. The witnesses to the complaint and accused must be available for cross-examination as and when there is direction to this effect by the Court." 11. The Court has option of accepting affidavits of the witnesses, instead of examining them in the Court. The witnesses to the complaint and accused must be available for cross-examination as and when there is direction to this effect by the Court." 11. The Supreme Court has also issued various directions in Meters and Instruments (P) Ltd. Vs. Kanchan Mehta, (2018) 1 SCC 560 and the same has been clarified by the Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court in Re: Expeditious Trial of Cases under Section 138 of N.I. Act, 1881, (2021 SCC OnLine SC 354), vide order dated 16.04.2021 and issued fresh direction with respect to the conduct of trials of complaints under section 138 of the Act1. Uttar Pradesh has also established, on a pilot basis, five Special Courts in the districts with the highest pendency of cases. Thereby five Special Courts were established in Lucknow, Agra, Kanpur, Gautambudh Nagar, and Ghaziabad, one in each district. The guidelines were also issued for covering the pilot study vide order dated 19.05.2022 in Re: Expeditious Trial of Cases under Section 138 of N.I. Act, 1881 (supra), the case is still seized with the Supreme Court. 12. The law established by the Supreme Court of India is indeed binding upon all subordinate courts in the country. Article 142 of the Constitution of India empowers the Supreme Court to deliver judgments and orders that are necessary for complete justice. It also states that these judgments and orders shall be enforceable throughout the territory of India. As a result, any decision or law propounded by the Supreme Court becomes a binding precedent for all lower or subordinate courts in the country, and they are required to follow and apply the same while deciding similar cases. This principle of law is crucial for maintaining consistency, uniformity, and the rule of law within the judicial system. 13. Indeed, it is a matter of record that the Supreme Court has consistently issued numerous directions in various cases to ensure the early and speedy disposal of complaints filed under Section 138 of the Act1. However, the desired impact is often not seen on the ground. 14. Litigants approach the courts with grievances, seeking resolution and redress for their issues. Their cases are not just legal matters; they represent significant aspects of their lives, rights, and property. However, the desired impact is often not seen on the ground. 14. Litigants approach the courts with grievances, seeking resolution and redress for their issues. Their cases are not just legal matters; they represent significant aspects of their lives, rights, and property. The outcome of the case can have a profound impact on their well-being, livelihood, and sense of security. 15. Addressing litigants' concerns and understanding the profound impact that legal proceedings have on their lives can foster public confidence in the judiciary and reinforce the belief that the courts are indeed the guardians of justice and protection. It is essential for the courts to embrace measures to expedite the resolution of cases and fulfil the legitimate expectations of those who approach the legal system in search of justice. 16. The relief, though appreciated, may no longer hold the same significance or impact as it would have if provided earlier or more expeditiously. The delay in obtaining justice can diminish the litigant's sense of satisfaction and may leave them feeling exhausted and disillusioned with the legal system. 17. It is indeed regrettable that the learned trial court failed to grasp the objective of the enactment of the Act, 2002, along with its purpose. 18. In terms of the directions issued by the Hon'ble Supreme Court as mentioned above and considering the provisions of the Act1, it is hereby ordered, with the hope and expectation, that the trial court comprehends the implications of non-compliance with the directions issued by the Supreme Court, to expeditiously dispose of the pending criminal complaint before the Court of the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, VIth, Meerut. This petition is thus disposed of accordingly.