Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2023 DIGILAW 2244 (PNJ)

Vikas Singh v. State of Haryana

2023-07-21

SANDEEP MOUDGIL

body2023
JUDGMENT Sandeep Moudgil, J. The present petition has been filed under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. seeking issuance of directions to the Illaqa Magistrate/Trial Court Sonipat to complete the trial of the complaint under Section 138 of the N.I. Act, 1881 bearing No.NACT/1952/2019 dated 19.12.2019 within six months. 2. It has been averred by learned counsel for the petitioner that the complaint in question had been filed on 19.12.2019 and at present the same is fixed for hearing on 27.09.2023. The said adjournment had been given by the trial Court on 13.01.2023 i.e. a long date of nine months has been granted, which shows that the trial Court is delaying the conclusion of the trial. 3. Vide order dated 10.04.2023, this Court had called for a report from the concerned Judicial Officer explaining the reasons for giving such a long date. Pursuant thereto, the concerned judicial officer sent her report/explanation vide letter No.204 of 17.04.2023 forwarded by the learned District & Sessions Judge, Sonipat vide his letter No.3891 of 18.04.2023. The relevant extract of the said report is as under: "It is further humbly submitted that the court of undersigned is the only exclusive court at District Head Quarter, Sonipat which is dealing with the cases of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The court of the undersigned had total pendency of 5366 cases as on 01.01.2023 and the undersigned had an Action Plan for the year 2022-23 in which the disposal of 750 old cases was to be achieved by 31.03.2023. Moreover, as per the direction of Hon'ble High Court of Punjab and Haryana all more than ten years old cases and five years old cases pending in the court were to be decided up till 31.12.2022 and 31.03.2023 respectively. Further, it would be appropriate to mention here that the average monthly institution of new cases in the court of undersigned is of approximately 90 cases. The undersigned has decided four 10 years old cases pending in the court of undersigned before 31.12.2022 and out of total 106 five years old cases (6 cases stayed) 86 cases were decided by the undersigned up to 31.03.2023. It is most humbly submitted that the case titled "Vikas Singh v. Hamara Production Pvt. Ltd." bearing CIS No.1952 of 2019 which was instituted on 19.12.2019 is pending in the court of undersigned. It is most humbly submitted that the case titled "Vikas Singh v. Hamara Production Pvt. Ltd." bearing CIS No.1952 of 2019 which was instituted on 19.12.2019 is pending in the court of undersigned. Due to outbreak of COVID-19 pandemic no effective proceedings could be carried out for a period of almost two years in all the cases pending in the courts. The present case was at serial number 1897 in terms of total cases ending in the court of undersigned as on 13.01.2023 (last date of hearing). It was only due to heavy pendency of cases in the court of undersigned as highlighted above, and to achieve the target of disposal of old cases and keeping in view the date of institution of the present matter the next date of hearing in the case was fixed from 13.01.2023 o 27.09.2023. The undersigned most humbly submits that there are urgent and time bound matters which need to be adjudicated without any loss of time and similarly the very old cases have to be decided at the earliest by granting short adjournments. The undersigned most respectfully submits that there was no intention to prolong or delay the proceedings of this case rather the undersigned was under duty to give priority to the other very old cases pending in the Court of the undersigned including cases falling in Action Plan category. However, earnest efforts are being made by the undersigned to balance the old cases and as well new cases so that all category of cases are accommodated and there is no unreasonable delay." 4. I have gone through the explanation submitted by the concerned Judicial Officer and am of the view that same is satisfactory. It has been specifically mentioned in the above report that there is a total pendency of 5366 cases in the concerned Court. The exclusive courts to deal with the cases of Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 were establish under the guidance and direction of the Hon'ble Supreme Court wherein it was directed to establish one exclusive court per 2500 cases under the N.I. Act. Meaning thereby, the court concerned is already burdened with almost double of the cases prescribed for one single Court. Moreover, the priority is also to be given to the Action Plan cases which include the oldest cases especially 10 years old cases and more. 5. Meaning thereby, the court concerned is already burdened with almost double of the cases prescribed for one single Court. Moreover, the priority is also to be given to the Action Plan cases which include the oldest cases especially 10 years old cases and more. 5. The case of the petitioner was instituted on 19.12.2019 and in the month of February-March 2020, i.e. after a period of merely two to three months, the outbreak of Corona Pandemic had taken place. The proceedings were stalled in all the subordinate Courts and no effective work could be done for a period of more than one and a half year. 6. Ordinarily, a case has its own stages of proceedings which could be achieved eventually and gradually which might take some time. Even otherwise, it is noticed in a number of cases that most of the adjournments are given at the request of the parties or their counsel themselves. Hence, no case can be decided in a hurry or scurry manner. Without there being any urgent or unavoidable circumstances, the proceedings of the trial Court are not be interfered with unnecessarily. The urgency of a single individual may not be urgency for a Court which is dealing with thousands of similar cases. 7. This Court is further of the opinion that although the Subordinate Courts are being directed time and again to make strenuous efforts to decide the cases falling in Action Plan category, therefore, no specific direction in the instant case is required to be issued. 8. It is expected that learned trial Court shall conclude the trial of the case in question as expeditiously as possible and by giving appropriate and proper opportunity of hearing to the parties concerned. However, the unnecessary adjournments shall be avoided. 9. Disposed off, accordingly.