Back
2024 Supreme(Online)(MP) 35079
HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
SHRI JUSTICE ANAND PATHAK
M/S Indar Singh And Son Through Partner Jasbindar Pal Singh – Appellant
Versus
Ajit Kumar Jain – Respondent
MCRC 10395/2024
Ram Krishna Pathak,
Courts should prioritize the expeditious resolution of cases involving elderly parties to avoid undue delay and ensure timely justice.
Headnote:
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, a 71-year-old man, filed a private complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act against the respondent, who is over 80 years old. The petitioner sought an expeditious conclusion of the trial, citing the advanced age of both parties.
Finding of the Court:
The court acknowledged the need for expeditious resolution of the case due to the advanced age of both parties and relied on precedents set by the Supreme Court in Indian Bank Association and Makwana Mangaldas Tulsidas cases.
Issues: Delay in trial due to advanced age of parties.
Ratio Decidendi: The court directed both parties and the trial court to cooperate in the early conclusion of the trial. The respondent was cautioned against taking undue adjournments, and the trial court was instructed to take stern action, including heavy costs, in such cases. The trial court was also directed to make all efforts to conclude the trial expeditiously.
Final Decision: The petition was disposed of with directions to the parties and the trial court to ensure an expeditious conclusion of the trial.
ORDER
1 . The present petition under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C. has been preferred by the petitioner seeking following relies:-
- "vr% ekuuh; U;k;ky; ls fuosnu gS fd vkosnd dh vksj ls izLrqr ;kfpdk Lohdkj dj fopkj.k U;k;ky; ls le{k yfacr izdj.k dzekad 2539@2022 eSllZ bUnj flag ,.M lu cuke vthr dqekj tSu vkfn dk fujkdj.k ,d fuf'pr le;kof/k esa fd;s tkus dk vkns'k iznku djus dh d`ik djsaA"
2. Grievance of the petitioner/complainant as reflected in this petition is (ANAND PATHAK) JUDGE that his private complaint filed under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act against the respondent may be concluded and decided at an expeditious note.
3. According to the counsel for the petitioner, petitioner is 71 years old and respondent is more than 80 years old (in one application his age is referred as 90 years). Therefore, both are at the twilight zone of their lives span, therefore, it is imperative that both must get rid of the litigation at the earliest. He relied upon the judgment of Apex Court in the case of Indian Bank Association and others Vs. Union of India and others reported in (2014) 5 SCC 590 and Makwana Mangaldas Tulsidas Vs. The State of Gujarat and another (Order dated 05.03.2020 passed in S.L.P. (Criminal) No.5464 of 2016). 4 . Considering the above submissions and the guidance given by the Apex Court in the cases of Indian Bank Association (Supra) and Makwana Mangaldas Tulsidas (Supra) in this regard, without issuance of notice to the other side to save time, this Court intends to allow the petition for limited purpose to the extent for issuance of directions to both the parties and Trial Court to cooperate in early conclusion of trial. Respondent/accused shall not take undue adjournments on flimsy pretext and if such adjournments are taken, then Trial Court shall take stern action against the respondent including heavy cost and other measures. Trial Court shall take all endeavors to its command under trial and decide at an expeditious note.
5. Accordingly, the petition stands disposed of in above terms. Vishal Vishal
