Madhya Pradesh High Court
Varsha Dani vs Sanjay Nigam on 15 May, 2025
Author: Gurpal Singh Ahluwalia
Bench: G. S. Ahluwalia
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:11069
1 M.Cr.C. No. 20771 of 2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT GWALIOR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE G. S. AHLUWALIA
ON THE 15th OF MAY, 2025
MISC. CRIMINAL CASE No. 20771 of 2025
VARSHA DANI
Versus
SANJAY NIGAM
Appearance:
Shri Shyam Sharma - Advocate for applicant.
ORDER
This application, under Section 528 of B.N.S.S., 2023, has been filed
seeking the following relief (s):
vr% ekuuh; U;k;ky; ls çkFkZuk gS fd ;kfpdk Lohdkj dj çdj.k
Øekad SC NIA 2961@2019 mUoku o”kkZ nkuh cuke lat; fuxe esa
fopkj.k U;k;ky; }kjk ikfjr vkns’k fnukad 08-04-2025 rFkk vkijkf/kd
iqujh{k.k ;kfpdk çdj.k Øekad 140@2025 esa Jheku U;k;ky; ,dkn’ke
ftyk ,oa vij l= U;k;k/kh’k ftyk Xokfy;j ¼e-ç-½ }kjk ikfjr vkns’k
fnukad 01-05-2025 dks ekuuh; mPpre U;k;ky; ds U;k; -“Vkar bafM;u
cSad ,lksfl,’ku o vU; cuke ;wfu;u v‚Q bafM;k 2014 ¼5½ SCC 590 ds
ikyu esa fujLr dj vkjksih ds fo#) U;k;ky; dk egÙoiw.kZ le; cckZn
djus ds fy;s 500@& :i;s ds LFkku ij 25]000@& :i;s gtkZ vf/kjksfir
dj ifjoknh }kjk çLrqr vafre rdZ rFkk MCRC 47069@2024 esa ikfjr
vkns’k ds ikyu esa xq.k nks”kks ij çdj.k esa fu.kZ; ikfjr djus@nks fu;rSignature Not Verified
Signed by: ANAND
SHRIVASTAVA
Signing time: 5/19/2025
12:42:02 PM
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:110692 M.Cr.C. No. 20771 of 2025
isf’k;ksa esa fu.kZ; ikfjr djus dk funsZ’k ,oa oSdfYid mipkj esa çdj.k dh
çfrfnu lquokbZ dj fof/k vuqlkj fu.kZ; ikfjr djus ds laca/k esa vU; mfpr
vkns’k tks ekuuh; U;k;ky; mfpr le>s nsus dh –ik dh tkosA
2. It is submitted by counsel for applicant that applicant had filed a
complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. On
21.03.2024, statement of accused was recorded under Section 313 of the CrPC
and the case was fixed for 3.4.2024 for recording of defence evidence. On
3.4.2024, defence witnesses were not present and accordingly the case was
adjourned for 6.5.2024. On 6.5.2024, summons were issued for appearance of
Shri Rajendra Shivhare, Advocate, and the case was fixed for 12.7.2024. On
12.7.2024, adjournment was sought by counsel for accused on the ground that
he is busy in house-warming program, but prayer for adjournment was rejected
and direction was given to deposit an amount of Rs.1500/- towards expenses of
Shri Rajendra Shivhare, Advocate, as well as right of accused to lead defence
evidence was closed and the case was fixed for 20.7.2024. On 20.7.2024, final
arguments were advanced by applicant but final arguments were not advanced
by accused and the case was adjourned for 10.8.2024. On 10.8.2024, an
application was filed for exemption from personal appearance of accused. It
appears that against order dated 12.07.2024 by which right of
respondent/accused to lead evidence was closed, respondent filed M.Cr.C.
No.35990 of 2024. The said application was dismissed by this Court by order
dated 27.3.2025. Thereafter, it appears that an application under Section 45 and
47 of the Evidence Act was filed by respondent which was allowed by the trial
court by order dated 4.10.2024. It appears that against the order dated
4.10.2024, applicant preferred Criminal Revision No.2961 of 2019 which was
dismissed by the revisional court by order dated 18.10.2024. Applicant, by
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: ANAND
SHRIVASTAVA
Signing time: 5/19/2025
12:42:02 PM
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:11069
3 M.Cr.C. No. 20771 of 2025
filing M.Cr.C. No. 47069 of 2024, challenged the order passed by the revisional
court dated 18.10.2024 and trial court dated 4.10.2024 and the said application
was allowed by order dated 4.2.2025 and the orders dated 18.10.2024 and
4.10.2024 were set aside.
3. On 7.2.2025, displeasure was expressed by the trial court with regard to
the conduct of respondent. Ultimately, by order dated 28.2.2025, application
filed by respondents for summoning Bank Manager was also rejected and the
case was fixed for final arguments. Thereafter, on 10.3.2025, an application
under Section 311 of CrPC was taken up for arguments and the said application
was rejected by passing a detailed order and the case was fixed for 12.3.2025.
On 12.3.2025, another application was filed by respondent to summon the
officer from Income Tax Department along with Income Tax Returns of
complainant and the case was fixed for arguments and order, on the said
application on 19.3.2025. By order dated 19.3.2025, the said application was
rejected and the case was fixed for final arguments for 25.3.2025. Thereafter,
on the very same day, respondents filed an application for summoning an
officer from the Post Office. By order dated 25.3.2025, the case was adjourned
for 2.4.2025 for final arguments. On 1.4.2025, the order dated 27.3.2025 passed
by this Court in M.Cr.C. No.35990/2024, by which the order passed by the trial
court closing the right to lead defence evidence was affirmed, was received by
the trial court. Thereafter, the case was fixed for 2.4.2025 for final arguments.
Thereafter, the case was fixed for final arguments on 11.4.2025. On 11.4.2025,
counsel for applicant argued the case finally. At that time, an application was
filed by the accused that the case should be taken as per the cause-list and final
arguments should be heard in presence of counsel for the respondent and the
case was directed to be called at 4:30 p.m. At 4:30 p.m., respondent filed an
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: ANAND
SHRIVASTAVA
Signing time: 5/19/2025
12:42:02 PM
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:11069
4 M.Cr.C. No. 20771 of 2025
application for summoning husband of complainant as well as attesting
witnesses of the agreement. On the very same day, the application was rejected
and the case was again fixed for 17.4.2025. On 17.4.2025, neither the accused
was present nor his counsel was present at 11:55 a.m., and an attempt was also
made to contact the counsel for accused on phone but he did not pick up the
phone. Accordingly, it was directed by the trial court that both the parties
should positively argue the matter at 3:30 p.m. At 3:30 p.m., an application
under Section 315 of the CrPC was filed by the respondent and on the very
same day the said application was rejected by passing a detailed order and the
case was fixed for final arguments on 24.3.2025. Immediately after the
application filed under Section 315 of the CrPC was rejected, accused filed
another application and accordingly the case was adjourned for 23.4.2025. On
23.4.2025, it was observed that counsel for respondent did not appear till 1:50
p.m., and since the Court was busy in other cases, therefore, the arguments
could not be heard and accordingly the case was fixed for 28.4.2025 for
arguments on the application. On 28.4.2025, arguments were heard and by
detailed order on the very same day, the said application was rejected and the
case was fixed for 30.4.2025. It also appears that the respondent also filed
Criminal Revision No.140 of 2025 against the order dated 8.4.2025 passed by
the trial court and the revisional court, by order dated 01.5.2025, dismissed the
revision.
4. It is submitted by counsel for applicant that respondent is trying very
hard not to argue the case finally and in spite of the fact that his right to lead
defence evidence has already been closed and the said order has already been
affirmed, still applications are being filed by respondent and accordingly the
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: ANAND
SHRIVASTAVA
Signing time: 5/19/2025
12:42:02 PM
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:11069
5 M.Cr.C. No. 20771 of 2025
trial court may be directed to decide the complaint case within a stipulated
period.
5. Heard learned counsel for applicant.
6. The Supreme Court in the case of High Court Bar Association,
Allahabad Vs. State of U.P. and Others decided on 29.02.2024 in Criminal
Appeal No.3589/2023 has held as under:
“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-of-turn 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.”
7. Now, the only question for consideration is as to whether applicant has
pointed out any exceptional circumstance warranting direction to the trial Court
to decide the criminal complaint filed under Section 138 of the Negotiable
Instruments Act on an early date or not?
8. Various order-sheets of the trial court and the orders passed by the High
Court have already been referred to above. Thus, it is clear that the right of
respondent to lead defence evidence has already been closed. Respondent is
trying very hard to get the matter adjourned by hook or crook. Under these
circumstances, this Court is of considered opinion that applicant has
successfully established that the case in hand falls under the category of
exceptional circumstances.
9. Accordingly, it is directed that the trial Court must decide the complaint
filed under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act within one month
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: ANAND
SHRIVASTAVA
Signing time: 5/19/2025
12:42:02 PM
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-GWL:11069
6 M.Cr.C. No. 20771 of 2025
from today. Applicant is directed to immediately file copy of this order before
the trial Court for necessary information and compliance.
10. It is made clear that no adjournment shall be granted by the trial Court to
respondent for final arguments. Whatever applications are filed shall be decided
on the very same day and the final arguments shall be positively heard on the
next date which will be fixed by the trial Court.
11. With aforesaid observation, the application is disposed of.
(G. S. AHLUWALIA)
JUDGE
(and)
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: ANAND
SHRIVASTAVA
Signing time: 5/19/2025
12:42:02 PM
[ad_1]
Source link