DHRUVCHAND KUSHWAHAversusSTATE OF U.P. AND ANOTHER

         HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

            APPLICATION U/S 529 BNSS No. - 4312 of 2026

Dhruvchand Kushwaha
                                                              .....Applicant(s)
                                   Versus
State of U.P. and Another
                                                                 .....Opposite
                                                                       Party(s)

Counsel for Applicant(s)                    :   Chandra Prakash Singh
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 State and
perused material on record.
2. The present application has been filed by the applicant with prayer to
direct the learned trial court to decide/expedite the Complaint Case No. 2789
of 2015 (Dhruvchand Kushwaha vs. Amit Kumar @ Monu) under Section
138 of Negotiable Instrument Act, P.S. Rajghat, District Gorakhpur, pending
before Civil Judge (Senior Division)-II, Gorakhpur within stipulated period.
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 matter belongs to the year
2015, which is still pending and has not been decided till now. Therefore, he
requested that a direction to 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
extra ordinary.
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
                                                         NA529 No. 4312 of 2026
                                2

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 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, applicant is given a liberty to move an appropriate application
before trial Court concerned for bringing out all such fact, 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 four weeks from the date of filing of such application. If trial
Court comes to 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 without granting any unnecessary adjournment to
either of the parties.

10. However, looking into the peculiar facts and circumstances of the
present case, it is expected from the learned trial Court to conduct the
pending proceedings before it strictly in accordance with Section 309
Cr.P.C./ Section 346 BNSS as well as in the light of various binding
directions issued by Hon'ble Apex Court from time to time regarding
compliance of aforesaid section. This Court would also like to draw the
attention of learned trial Court qua Explanation 2, which is reproduced
herein-below:

"Explanation 2. – The terms on which an adjournment or postponement may
be granted include, in appropriate cases, the payment of costs by the
prosecution or the accused."
11. 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.
                                                                                       NA529 No. 4312 of 2026
                                                                 3

                                    12. Accordingly, the present application is disposed of with aforesaid
                                    direction.
                                    September 9, 2026
                                    Dhirendra/
                                                                                    (Dr. Ajay Kumar-II,J.)




Digitally signed by :-
DHIRENDRA KUMAR
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad