Expeditious trial of cheque dishonour complaints may be refused where no special ground justifies priority intervention.

A writ petition under Article 226 read with Section 482 CrPC seeking expeditious trial of a Section 138 Negotiable Instruments Act complaint was found unwarranted. The Court noted the statutory emphasis on speedy disposal of cheque dishonour cases and the Supreme Court's directions for prompt trial, but balanced this against heavy Magistracy pendency and the need to follow the normal roster and diary of pending matters. It also recorded that delay had already occurred because of transfer and non-service of summons, and that no special circumstance justified invoking inherent jurisdiction. The petition was dismissed and no priority hearing or other interference was granted.

---

---

Issues: Whether a writ petition invoking Article 226 of the Constitution of India read with Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 could be entertained to direct expeditious trial of a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881.

Analysis: The statutory scheme under Section 143(3) of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 emphasises expeditious disposal of cheque dishonour cases. The Court also noted the Supreme Court's directions for speedy trial in such matters. At the same time, the Court relied on the practical realities of heavy pendency before the Magistracy and the need to follow the normal roster and diary of pending cases. It further found that the complaint had already faced delay due to transfer and non-service of summons, and that the petitioner had not demonstrated any circumstance justifying invocation of the inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

Conclusion: The Court held that no fit case was made out for exercise of writ or inherent jurisdiction to priority hearing or other interference, and the petition was dismissed.

---