JUDGMENT : Sameer Jain, J. 1. The present petition is filed under Section 428 of BNSS against the impugned order dated 18.01.2025 whereby the application under Section 70(2) of Cr.P.C. of the petitioner was dismissed. 2. At the outset, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that vide order dated 18.01.2025 learned Trial Court dismissed the application of the petitioner wherein the applicant- petitioner had pleaded under Section 70(2) of Cr.P.C. for conversion of the standing arrest orders into bailable warrants. 3. It is submitted that impugned order is erroneous as learned trial Court without considering and appreciating the documents placed on record, dismissed the said application of the petitioner. 4. As learned Public Prosecutor has marked presence, notices need not be issued. 5. Learned Public Prosecutor has stoutly opposed the contentions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner. 6. Having heard the submissions put forth by learned counsel for the petitioner and upon perusal of the impugned order and other material available on record, this court is of the following view: 6.1 That the petitioners have an adverse history vis-a-vis his cooperation in the trial that is ongoing. It is noted that in the instant matter provisions of Section 138 of NI Act are attracted. The primary objective of the NI Act is to create an efficacious and expeditious adjudication directives; wherein provisions of Section 143 of the Act makes it unambiguous that the concerned Magistrate shall make every endeavor to culminate the proceedings within a period of 6 months from the date of institution of suit. 6.2 Upon a perusal of the material available on record and the observations noted in the order dated 18.01.2025, it is noted that FIR from which the proceedings in question arose was registered way back in the year 2021, upon filing of the Final Report the complainant had filed a protest petition which came to be allowed on 22.07.2022. On 29.09.2022 summons were issued qua the accused-petitioners, thereafter on 07.08.2024, despite the bailable warrants being issued against them, the petitioners have not marked presence before the learned Trial Court. Consequentially, arrest warrants dated 31.08.2024 were issued against the accused-petitioners. On 29.09.2022 summons were issued qua the accused-petitioners, thereafter on 07.08.2024, despite the bailable warrants being issued against them, the petitioners have not marked presence before the learned Trial Court. Consequentially, arrest warrants dated 31.08.2024 were issued against the accused-petitioners. 6.3 Nevertheless, Hon'ble Supreme Court in its precedent of Inder Mohan Goswami & Another vs State Of Uttaranchal & Others reported in AIR 2008 SC 251 has opined as follows: "As far as possible, if the court is of the opinion that a summon will suffice in getting the appearance of the accused in the court, the summon or the bailable warrants should be preferred. The warrants either bailable or non-bailable should never be issued without proper scrutiny of facts and complete application of mind, due to the extremely serious consequences and ramifications which ensue on issuance of warrants. The court must very carefully examine whether the Criminal Complaint or FIR has not been filed with an oblique motive. In complaint cases, at the first instance, the court should direct serving of the summons along with the copy of the complaint. If the accused seem to be avoiding the summons, the court, in the second instance should issue bailable- warrant. In the third instance, when the court is fully satisfied that the accused is avoiding the courts proceeding intentionally, the process of issuance of the non- bailable warrant should be resorted to. Personal liberty is paramount, therefore, we caution courts at the first and second instance to refrain from issuing non-bailable warrants. The power being discretionary must be exercised judiciously with extreme care and caution. The court should properly balance both personal liberty and societal interest before issuing warrants. There cannot be any straight-jacket formula for issuance of warrants but as a general rule, unless an accused is charged with the commission of an offence of a heinous crime and it is feared that he is likely to tamper or destroy the evidence or is likely to evade the process of law, issuance of non-bailable warrants should be avoided. The Court should try to maintain proper balance between individual liberty and the interest of the public and the State while issuing non-bailable warrant." (Emphasis supplied) 7. The Court should try to maintain proper balance between individual liberty and the interest of the public and the State while issuing non-bailable warrant." (Emphasis supplied) 7. In light of the aforementioned, it is deduced that the learned Trial Court has rightly followed the procedure of firstly issuing summons, then bailable warrants- if the summons are not complied with, and only after taking note of the fact that the accused-petitioners are time-and-again avoiding their presence in the Court, and creating undue, unwarranted delay in the adjudication of a matter that is ought to be decided within a stipulated period i.e. of six months, the Trial Court issued non- bailable warrants. It is also noted that the FIR in furtherance of which the instant proceedings are initiated pertains to the year 2021 and summons qua the accused-petitioners were issued way back in the year 2022; that the petitioners are adopting delaying tactics. 8. Accordingly, the present petition being devoid of any merits stands dismissed. The petitioners are directed to comply with the directions passed by the learned Trial Court, and render all cooperation in the adjudication of the matter. Learned Trial Court is at liberty to proceed further with the adjudication of the matter pending before it, and it is expected that the same be decided, pronto, as per the provisions and mandate of the governing statute. Pending applications, if any, shall stand disposed of.