Protracted delay in complaints under Section 138 of the N.I. Act constitutes abuse of process, violating the right to a speedy trial.

JUDGMENT :

SATYA VEER SINGH, J.

1. Heard Mr Raj Nath Bhakta, learned counsel for the applicant, Mr. Subhendra Singh along with Mr B.P. Pandey, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.

2. The present application under Section 528 BNSS, 2023 has been filed with the prayer to quash the impugned judgment and order dated 16.10.2025 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, Court No. 22, Azamgarh, in Misc. Case No. 3817 of 2024 (Anand Kumar vs. Brajesh Kumar), under Section 138 The Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (hereinafter referred as N.I. Act), Police Station Kotwali, District Azamgarh. It is further prayed that the Hon’ble Court may be pleased to quash the entire proceeding of Misc. Case No. 3817 of 2024 (Anand Kumar vs. Brijesh Kumar), under Section 138 N. I Act, Police Station - Kotwali, District - Azamgarh, pending in the court of learned Judicial Magistrate, Court No.22, Azamgarh, during pendency of the present application, otherwise applicant shall suffer irreparable loss and injury.

3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the application dated 08.09.2025 has been rejected by the impugned order dated 16.10.2025. It is further submitted that the impugned order is illegal as no proper opportunity was provided to produce the defence evidence; therefore, the impugned order is not sustainable in the eyes of law and is liable to be quashed.

4. By the impugned order dated 16.10.2025, the trial court rejected the application filed by the applicant-accused with the prayer to reject the order dated 18.08.2025, by which further opportunity to produce evidence was closed, i.e. production of the report of the verification of writing and signature by the expert for the just decision of the case. The relevant portion of the order dated 16.10.2025 is reproduced below:-

5. Per contra, Learned A.G.A. submits that the proeedings under Section 138 N.I. Act are summary proceedings. Therefore, the proceeding should be concluded expeditiously within six months and has placed reliance on various judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, namely: Damodar S. Prabhu vs. Sayed Babalal H. , (2010) 5 SCC 663 , Indian Bank Association and Ors. vs. Union of India and Ors. , (2014) 5 SCC 590, Meters and Instruments Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. vs. Kanchan Mehta, (2018) 1 SCC 560 , Makwana Mangaldas Tulsidas vs. State of Gujarat and Ors , (2020) 4 SCC 695 and In Re: Expeditious Trial of Cases Under Section 138 N.I. Act (Suo Motu Writ Petition (Criminal) No. 2 of 2020).

6. Considering the submissions, it is an admitted fact that a complaint under section 138 N.I. Act was filed in the year 2013, and since then, the said complaint has been pending. More than 12 years have already passed, rendering this case a stark exemplification of inordinate delay in the adjudication of a summary trial. Such protracted pendency constitutes a gross abuse of the process of Court in summary trial cases.

7. In the old code, i.e. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Now repealed), summary trials were introduced in Chapter XXI from Section 260 to 265, and the summary trials have been provided in the new code, i.e. BNSS, 2023, in Chapter XXII from Section 283 to 288.

8. So far as the cases under the N.I. Act are concerned with expeditious disposal, the legislature, in its wisdom, introduced the provision for summary trial by way of amendment in the year 2002. Section 143 was inserted by Act 55 of 2002, and by the same amendment act, Sections 144 and 145 were also inserted. Sections 143 to 145 of the N.I. Act are reproduced below :-

“[143. Power of Court to try cases summarily.—(1) Notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974) all off