SHACHISH KUMAR SAMADHIAversusSTATE OF U.P. AND ANOTHER

         HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

            APPLICATION U/S 529 BNSS No. - 4154 of 2026

Shachish Kumar Samadhia
                                                             .....Applicant(s)
                                   Versus
State of U.P. and Another
                                                                .....Opposite
                                                                      Party(s)

Counsel for Applicant(s)                         :    Hitesh Pachori
Counsel for Opposite Party(s)                    :    G.A.

Court No. - 78
                  HON'BLE DR. AJAY KUMAR-II, J.

1. Heard Mr. Hitesh Pachori, learned counsel for the applicant, learned
A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.


2. The present application under Section 529 of BNSS has been filed by the
applicant with a prayer to direct the learned trial Court to conclude the
proceedings of Case No. 78342/2021 (Old No. 935/2021) (Shachish Kumar
Samadhia vs. Smt. Aruna Gaur), under section 138 of Negotiable Instrument
Act, Police Station Sikandra, District Agra, expeditiously within the
stipulated period, pending in the Court of learned Presiding Officer, Court
No. 2, Agra.


3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the proceedings before the
Court concerned be directed to be concluded in a time-bound manner. It is
submitted by learned counsel for the applicant that in this case, a complaint
under Section 138 N.I. Act was filed before the learned trial Court on
14.09.2021, which complaint is still pending and has not been decided till
date. Therefore, he requested that a direction to the learned trial Court be
issued to decide the aforesaid case within a stipulated period of time.


4. Learned A.G.A. has no objection in this regard if the Court below is not
already overloaded with huge pendency of such cases.


5. Hon'ble Apex Court in Shaikh Uzma Feroz Hussain vs. State of
Maharashtra in Writ Petition (Criminal) No. 587 of 2023 has observed
that every High Court and every Court in the country has a huge pendency,
                                                         NA529 No. 4154 of 2026
                                2

the constitutional Court should avoid temptation of fixing a time bound
schedule for disposal of any case before any Court unless the situation is
extraordinary.


6. Hon'ble Apex Court in High Court Bar Association, Allahabad vs.
State of U.P. and others, (2024) 6 SCC 267 has observed in paragraph 42,
which is reproduced as under:-


"Constitutional Courts should not normally fix a time-bound schedule for
disposal of cases pending in any Court. The pattern of pendency of various
categories of cases pending in every Court, including High Courts, is
different. The situation at the grassroots level is better known to the judges
of the concerned Courts. Therefore, the issue of giving out-of-turn priority
to certain cases should be best left to the concerned Courts. The orders
fixing the outer limit for the disposal of cases should be passed only in
exceptional circumstances to meet extraordinary situations."

7. Thus, law as far as issuance of a direction for time-bound/expeditious
disposal has already been well settled that only when an exceptional
circumstance is made out, a direction for time-bound/expeditious disposal of
such a case can be issued not otherwise.


8. Learned counsel for the applicant has failed to make out any exceptional
circumstances to issue direction for time-bound/expeditious disposal of case,
at this stage. Accordingly, relief sought by way of present application is
hereby refused.


9. Considering the nature of prayer made by learned counsel for the
applicant, the interest of justice would be served, in the event, the applicant
applies before the Court concerned for expeditious disposal of the above
mentioned case. Therefore, the applicant is given a liberty to move an
appropriate application before trial Court concerned for bringing out all such
facts, which are necessary for expeditious disposal of her case within two
weeks from today and in case, such an application is moved, the trial Court
shall decide the same within four weeks from the date of filing of such
application. If, trial Court comes to the conclusion that the case for
expeditious disposal is made out, then in that eventuality, it shall decide the
same as expeditiously as possible within a reasonable period.
                                                                                             NA529 No. 4154 of 2026
                                                                    3


                                    10. A perusal of certified copy of order-sheets reveals that case was fixed for
                                    cross-examination of PW-2 on 11.01.2024 and on 11.01.2024, an exemption
                                    application was moved on behalf of accused and his learned counsel also
                                    failed to turn up. In this situation, the aforesaid exemption application was
                                    allowed subject to payment of cost of Rs. 1000/- by giving a last opportunity
                                    to cross-examine the witness. Thereafter, again an exemption application
                                    was moved on 07.02.2024 but his learned counsel failed to turn up for cross-
                                    examination the witness, therefore, opportunity to cross-examine the
                                    witness, in Court was closed and the file was fixed for recording the
                                    statement under section 313 Cr.P.C. However, accused continuously remain
                                    absent and on 29.07.2024, NBW against accused and sureties were issued.
                                    However, neither NBW nor aforesaid notice was served and thus, this case is
                                    held up at this stage.

                                    11. This Court would like to draw the attention of the Court concerned that
                                    whenever NBW or BW or any other process is issued against either accused
                                    or witness, then such Court is duty bound to make all endeavour for ensuring
                                    execution of such NBW or BW or other process. It is the bounden duty of
                                    every police officer promptly to obey and execute all orders and warrants
                                    lawfully issued to him by virtue of Section 23 of the Police Act, 1861. If
                                    such police officer violates his duty or neglect any lawful order passed by
                                    such Court, then he becomes guilty under Section 29 of the Police Act.
                                    Therefore, the Courts are not powerless to ensure compliance of it's order/ or
                                    execution of lawful process issued by it.


                                    12. It is also provided that in the event there is any legal impediment before
                                    the Court concerned in disposal of the case, then the Court concerned shall
                                    pass an appropriate order disclosing the legal impediment as to why the
                                    proceedings of the above mentioned case cannot be proceeded with.


                                    13. With the aforesaid observations/direction, the present application is
                                    disposed of.

                                    September 9, 2026
                                    Monika
                                                                                         (Dr. Ajay Kumar-II,J.)




Digitally signed by :-
MONIKA KESARWANI
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad