9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2017 (9) TMI 1444 - HC - Indian LawsComplaint u/s 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act - Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India read with Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 seeking speedy trial - Held that - The jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code is to be exercised by this Court (i) to give effect to any order under this Code, or (ii) to prevent abuse of the process of any Court, or (iii) otherwise to secure the ends of justice. However, in the light of facts and circumstances of the case, the petitioner has failed to justify any of the circumstances to invoke Section 482 of the Code in the present case. Therefore, this court does not feel that the petitioner has made out a fit case for the exercise of its powers under Section 482 of the Code.The petition is accordingly dismissed.
Issues:
- Speedy trial of a complaint case under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act, 1881. - Compliance with guidelines for expeditious disposal of cases under Section 138 of the NI Act. - Exercise of jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Issue 1: Speedy Trial The Writ Petition sought a speedy trial of a complaint case under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act, 1881. The petitioner filed a complaint against the respondent under Section 138 of the NI Act, and cognizance was taken by the Metropolitan Magistrate. The petitioner argued that trials under the NI Act should be conducted expeditiously, aiming to conclude within six months, as per Section 143(3) of the Act. The petitioner also relied on the judgment in Indian Bank Association v Union of India, where guidelines were provided for expeditious disposal of cases under Section 138 of the NI Act. Issue 2: Compliance with Guidelines The court acknowledged the guidelines laid down by the Supreme Court in Indian Bank Association's case and the legislative intent behind Section 143(3) to ensure expeditious disposal of cases under the NI Act. The court noted a circular issued by the High Court directing subordinate courts to make efforts for timely disposal of such cases. Referring to a previous case, the court highlighted the challenges posed by a large number of pending cases and a shortage of Metropolitan Magistrates, emphasizing the need for cases to be heard in order. Issue 3: Exercise of Jurisdiction under Section 482 The court considered the exercise of jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure to prevent abuse of the legal process or secure the ends of justice. Despite the petitioner's plea for invoking Section 482, the court found that the circumstances presented did not justify its application in the case. The court noted the petitioner's failure to demonstrate the necessity for invoking Section 482 and ultimately dismissed the petition, as it did not find the petitioner's case suitable for the exercise of powers under Section 482 of the Code. In conclusion, the court emphasized the importance of expeditious disposal of cases under the NI Act, as highlighted in the guidelines and legislative provisions. While recognizing the challenges faced by the Metropolitan Magistrates due to a high number of pending cases, the court dismissed the petition seeking a speedy trial, citing the lack of justification for invoking Section 482 of the Code in the present circumstances.
|
