The High Court of Judicature at Allahabad has dismissed an application seeking to quash proceedings under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (N.I. Act), observing that a delay of 13 years in a summary trial constitutes a “gross abuse of the process of Court.” Justice Satya Veer Singh held that the accused had been provided more than sufficient opportunities for defense and that stalling tactics in legal proceedings are “abhorrent to justice.”
The applicant was represented by counsels Binod Kumar Yadav and Raj Nath Bhakta, while the State was represented by Mr. Subhendra Singh and Mr. B.P. Pandey, learned A.G.A.
Background
The case originated from a complaint filed on February 1, 2013, under Section 138 of the N.I. Act in District Azamgarh. The applicant, Brijesh Kumar, had sought to quash an order dated October 16, 2025, passed by the Judicial Magistrate, Court No. 22, Azamgarh. The Magistrate had rejected Kumar’s plea to reopen his opportunity to produce defense evidence—specifically, a report from a handwriting expert—which had been closed on August 18, 2025, due to lack of prosecution.
Records indicated that while the applicant’s sample signatures were taken in April 2023, he failed to pursue the matter despite several reminders and final opportunities granted by the trial court.
Arguments of the Parties
The counsel for the applicant contended that the impugned order was illegal as it deprived the applicant of a proper opportunity to produce defense evidence. It was argued that the expert’s report on writing and signatures was essential for a “just decision of the case” and that the closure of evidence would cause irreparable loss.
Conversely, the learned A.G.A. for the State submitted that proceedings under Section 138 are summary in nature and, according to various Supreme Court mandates, should ideally be concluded within six months. He argued that the case had already been pending for over a decade and the applicant was merely seeking to delay the adjudication.
Court’s Analysis and Legal Framework
The Court examined the statutory intent behind Sections 143, 143A, 144, and 145 of the N.I. Act. Justice Singh noted that the legislature introduced these provisions via the 2002 amendment to ensure “quick disposal” and “facilitate smooth transactions by cheque.”
The Court highlighted that:
- Section 143(2) mandates that trials should continue day-to-day.
- Section 143(3) stipulates that an endeavor should be made to conclude the trial within six months from the date of filing.
The Bench referred to several landmark Supreme Court judgments, including In Re: Expeditious Trial of Cases Under Section 138 N.I. Act (2021) and the recent Sanjabij Tari vs. Kishore S. Borcar & Anr. (2025), which issued comprehensive guidelines to tackle the “massive backlog” of cheque bouncing cases.
Critiquing the delay in the present case, the Court observed:
“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.”
The Court invoked the legal maxim “In diem vivere in lege sunt detestabilis,” noting:
“Unnecessary procrastination or stalling tactics in legal proceedings are abhorrent to justice. Such tardiness not only erodes public confidence but also renders the law an instrument of distress rather than relief. In this context, the words of William Shakespeare ring true: ‘Defer no time; delays have dangerous ends.'”
Furthermore, the Court emphasized that such delays run counter to the right to a speedy trial under Article 21 of the Constitution of India.
The Decision
Justice Satya Veer Singh found no illegality or irregularity in the trial court’s order, noting that the accused had been recording his statement since 2021 but failed to produce any defense documents for years.
“This Court finds no illegality or irregularity in the impugned order as more than sufficient opportunities of defence were provided by the trial court,” the Bench held.
The Court refused to quash the proceedings and directed that the matter be expedited. The judgment was ordered to be placed before the District and Sessions Judge concerned to ensure an endeavor is made to dispose of such delayed matters within the statutory period.
Case Details:
- Case Title: Brijesh Kumar vs. State of U.P. and another
- Case No: APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. 50246 of 2025
- Bench: Justice Satya Veer Singh
- Counsel for Applicant: Binod Kumar Yadav, Raj Nath Bhakta
- Counsel for Opposite Party: G.A., Subhendra Singh, B.P. Pandey
