Allahabad High Court
BRIJESH KUMAR TRIPATHIversusSTATE OF U.P. AND ANOTHER
- Decided
- Bench
- AJAY KUMAR II
Holding
The High Court declined to issue a time‑bound disposal direction as no exceptional circumstances were demonstrated.
Summary
The applicant filed an application under Section 529 of the BNSS seeking a court order directing the trial court to dispose of a pending Section 138 Negotiable Instruments Act complaint within a fixed time. The applicant argued that the case, filed on 04‑06‑2025, remained undecided and required a time‑bound schedule. The State’s Additional Government Advocate raised no objection provided the lower court was not overloaded. The High Court referred to Supreme Court precedents emphasizing that time‑bound directions are permissible only in extraordinary circumstances. Finding no such exceptional circumstance, the Court refused the relief, but permitted the applicant to approach the trial court with a fresh application for expeditious disposal, specifying procedural timelines.
Issues considered
- Whether the High Court can, under Section 529 of the BNSS, direct a lower court to dispose of a pending Section 138 N.I. Act case within a stipulated period.
- Whether the facts of the present case constitute an ‘exceptional circumstance’ justifying a time‑bound disposal direction.
Legislation cited
- BNSS Act — s. 529
- Negotiable Instruments Act — s. 138
Subjects
- time‑bound disposal
- Section 138 Negotiable Instruments Act
- Section 529 BNSS
- exceptional circumstances
- court pendency
- expeditious disposal
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
APPLICATION U/S 529 BNSS No. - 4162 of 2026
Brijesh Kumar Tripathi
.....Applicant(s)
Versus
State of U.P. and Another
.....Opposite
Party(s)
Counsel for Applicant(s) : Ashwani Tripathi, Ramanuj Tripathi
Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A.
Court No. - 78
HON'BLE DR. AJAY KUMAR-II, J.
1. Heard 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 trial
of Complaint Case No. 668 of 2025 (Brijesh Kumar Tripathi vs. Pankaj
Kumar Shukla) under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, Police
Station Civil Lines, District Prayagraj, pending in the Court of learned
Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No. 2, Prayagraj, within a
stipulated period of time as fixed by this Court.
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
04.06.2025, 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,
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.
NA529 No. 4162 of 2026
2
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 pendecny 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 his case within two
weeks from today and in case, such an application is moved, the trial Court
shall decide the same within six 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.
10. 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.
11. 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
Checking your session…