Courts should not fix time limits for case disposal unless exceptional circumstances warrant such directives.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT GWALIOR BEFORE HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE G. S. AHLUWALIA th ON THE 15 OF MAY, 2025 MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 20167 of 2025 YOGESH SHARMA Versus FIRM PAWAN JEWELLERS AND BARTAN AND OTHERS Appearance:

Mr. Rishi Kumar Soni - Advocate for applicant.

ORDER This application under Section 528 of B.N.S.S. has been filed seeking the following reliefs :-

"(cid:1)करण (cid:5)मांक SCNIA 15/2022 उनवान योगेश शमा (cid:17) बनाम फम (cid:17) पवन (cid:21)वैलस (cid:17) आ(cid:26)द आगामी पेशी (cid:26)दनांक 17/06/2025 का यथाशी(cid:30) िनराकरण (cid:26)कये जाने हेत ु समयाविध िनधा(cid:37)(cid:17) रत कर माननीय (cid:38)वचारण (cid:40)यायालय को िनयत समयाविध म(cid:41) (cid:1)करण के िनराकरण हेत ु समिु चत आदेश/िनद(cid:42)श जार(cid:43) (cid:26)कये जाने

का आदेश पा(cid:37)रत करने क(cid:44) कृपा कर(cid:41)।

अ(cid:40)य (cid:40)यायोिचत सहायता जो माननीय (cid:40)यायालय आवेदक के (cid:26)हत म(cid:41)

एवं (cid:1)करण के यथाशी(cid:30) (cid:40)यायोिचत िनराकरण (cid:26)कये जाने हेत ु समिु चत समझ(cid:41) -

आवेदक को (cid:1)दाय करने क(cid:44) कृपा कर(cid:41)।"

2. It is submitted by counsel for applicant that complaint under Section

138 of Negotiable Instruments Act was filed in the year 2022. The case was fixed for recording of evidence on 29.11.2023. Thereafter, on one pretext or other, respondent / accused was seeking adjournment and, ultimately, by Signature Not Verified order dated 19.09.2024, right of accused to lead defence evidence was closed. Said order was challenged by the respondent by filing Criminal Revision No. 31/2024 which was finally disposed of by order dated 07.10.2024 passed by Second Additional Sessions Judge, Gohad, District Bhind and a last opportunity was directed to be given to the respondent to lead defence evidence. It is submitted that thereafter cross-examination of Pawan (D.W. 1) started from 24.10.2024 and continued on 09.11.2024 as well as 07.12.2024. His cross-examination could not be concluded on account of the fact that working hours of the court were over. Thereafter, case was fixed for 08.05.2025 which was preponed to 27.03.2025. However, defence witness did not appear. Now, case is fixed for cross-examination of Pawan (D.W. 1) on 17.06.2025. It is submitted that revisional court had granted only one opportunity to lead defence evidence. It is true that Pawan (D.W. 1) had remained present before the trial Court on three occasions but his cross-examination could not be concluded on account of the fact that working hours were over. It is submitted that now even Pawan (D.W. 1) is not appearing and lengthy dates are being given by the trial Court. Accordingly, it is prayed that under these circumstances, trial Court may be directed to conclude the trial within a period of three months from the next date fixed before the trial Court.

3. Considered the submissions made by counsel for applicant.

4. The Supreme Court in the case of High Court Bar Association, Allahbad Vs. State of U.P. and Others decided on 29/02/2024 in SLP (Crl.)

Nos.13284-13289 of 2023 has held as under:-

Signature Not Verified "32. Therefore, 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 different. The situation at the grassroots level is better known to the judges of the concerned Courts. Therefore, the issue of giving out-ofturn 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."

Thus, it is clear that unless and until an exceptional circumstance is pointed out, this Court cannot direct the district judiciary to expedite the hearing of the cases thereby d