IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Decided on : 06.02.2025 Kunal Dhingra . . . Petitioner Versus Pooja Bajaj . . . Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY VASHISTH PRESENT: Mr. Arpan Sabharwal, Advocate for the petitioner.

****

SANJAY VASHISTH , J. (Oral)

1. Present petition has been filed under Section 528 of BNSS, seeking issuance of directions to learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Ludhiana to fast track the trial in complaint case bearing CNR No. PBL D03-093739-2022 and COMA 92269/2022, titled as Kunal Dhingra V. Pooja Bajaj, and to expedite the same on account of inordinate delay being caused by the respondent.

2. By referring to the zimni orders, learned counsel for the petitioner contends that though the complaint had been filed and registered on 25.11.2022, but the proceedings are stuck at the stage of conducting of cross-examination of the complainant witnesses. Counsel also submits that many a times it is the respondent-accused, who has sought exemption from his appearance before the Court. Thus, Counsel submits that the endeavor of the complainant is to delay the proceedings as it benefits him. However, as per settled law of Hon’ble Supreme Court in ‘Kartar Singh Vs. State of Punjab and connect case, 1994(2) RCR 169’, it is the right of the parties before the Court to have speedy disposal of the trial. By referring to the criminal complaint filed under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act, counsel submits that respondent-complainant had sought financial assistance from the petitioner for an amount of Rs.3,95,000/-(Rupees Three lacs ninety five thousand only) for her needs in the month of August, 2022, but failed to return the said amount as per the compromise. Resultantly petitioner was compelled to file the criminal complaint under Section 138 NIA Act. After fulfilling all the required legal steps and parameters.

3. At this stage, there is no need to issue notice to the respondent, as it would lead to unnecessary expenditure, time, energy and resources of the respondent. Even otherwise also no adverse order has been passed against the respondent and his presence at this stage may not be required for any assistance. However, in case, respondent finds any concealment on the part of the petitioners in the present petition, he may file an application for revival of the present petition with the purpose to show the acutal conduct of the petitioner. .

4. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioners and perused the documents appended with the petition.

5. The Hon’ble Supreme Court laid down certain propositions governing the fundamental human right to a speedy trial in a criminal prosecution in the case of Abdul Rehman Antulay and others Vs. R.S.

Nayak and another, 1992 (2) RCR 634 as follows:-

54. In view of the above discussion, the following propositions emerge, meant to serve as guidelines. We must forewarn that these propositions are not exhaustive. It is difficult to foresee all situations. Nor is it possible to lay down any hard and fast rules. These propositions are :

1. Fair, just and reasonable procedure implicit in Article 21 of the Constitution creates a right in the accused to be tried speedily.

Right to speedy trial is the right of the accused. The fact that a speed trial is also in public interest or that it serves the societal interest also, does not make it any-the-less the right of the accused. I is in the interest of all concerned that the guilt or innocence of the accused is determined as quickly as possible in the circumstances.

2. Right to Speedy Trial flowing from Article 21 encompasses all the stages, namely the stage of investigation, inquiry, trial, appeal, revision and retrial. That is how, this Court has understood this right and there is no reason to take a restricted view.

3. The concerns underlying the Right to speedy trial from the point of view of the accused are :

(a) the period of remand and pre-conviction detention should be as short as possible. In other words,