Dishonour of cheque case pending since 2021 must be decided within six months under Section 143 Negotiable Instruments Act

HC directed expeditious disposal of dishonour of cheque case pending since 2021 under Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. Court noted that Section 143(2) mandates day-to-day trial basis and Section 143(3) requires conclusion within six months of complaint filing. Citing SC directions in Indian Bank Association case for expeditious disposal, HC ordered Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate to decide the complaint case within six months, following statutory provisions and avoiding unnecessary technicalities. Application disposed of with directions for swift resolution.

---

---

Issues:
Expeditious disposal of cases under the Negotiable Instrument Act, 1881.

Analysis:
The High Court was approached through a 482 Cr.P.C. application to direct the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate to decide a complaint case under section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act, 1881 expeditiously. The application highlighted the delay in the pending proceeding since 2021, contrary to the provisions of Section 143(2) and 143(3) of the Act, which mandate day-to-day trial and conclusion within six months from the date of filing the complaint. The court referred to the directions issued by the Supreme Court in the case of Indian Bank Association and others vs. Union of India and others, emphasizing the need for expeditious disposal of cases under the Act. The Supreme Court's directions included specific procedures for speedy disposal, such as scrutinizing complaints on the day of filing, issuing summons promptly, and conducting examination of witnesses within three months. The High Court, in line with the Supreme Court's directives, directed the Magistrate to decide the case within six months and not hesitate to use coercive measures to ensure the accused's presence during trial.

The judgment also referenced another Supreme Court case, In Re: Expeditious Trial of Cases under Section 138 of the Act, 1881, which provided additional directions for expeditious trial under section 138. These directions included recording reasons before converting trial types, conducting inquiries when accused reside beyond the court's jurisdiction, permitting evidence on affidavit, recommending amendments for one trial against a person for multiple offences, and treating service of summons in related complaints as deemed service for all. The judgment reiterated the Supreme Court's stance that Trial Courts lack inherent power to review or recall summons, except under specific circumstances, and that Section 258 of the Code does not apply to complaints under Section 138 of the Act.

In conclusion, the High Court emphasized the importance of expeditious disposal of cases under the Negotiable Instrument Act, 1881, in accordance with the Supreme Court's directives. The court directed the Magistrate to decide the pending case expeditiously, within six months, and utilize coercive measures if necessary to ensure the accused's presence during trial. The judgment underscored the need to adhere to statutory provisions and avoid unnecessary delays in legal proceedings, as mandated by the relevant sections of the Act and the Supreme Court's directions.

---