After Nearly Six Years, Delhi HC Directs Trial Court To Prevent Unnecessary Adjournments In Cheque Case

GNG Stock Holdings Pvt. Ltd. filed a petition under Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, seeking expeditious disposal of its complaint under Sections 138 and 142 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, pending before the JMFC (NI Act)-01, Patiala House Courts.

The petitioner submitted that the complaint had been pending for almost six years and that the respondent had repeatedly sought adjournments and failed to appear or comply with court directions.

It relied, among other things, on the Trial Court’s order dated 18 August 2023, which recorded delay attributable to the accused and directed payment of interim compensation under Section 143A of the NI Act.

The judgment identifies the complaint as CC 6130/2020 at the outset but refers to it as CC 6130/2025 in the operative direction.

Section 143(3) of the NI Act requires that a Section 138 trial be conducted as expeditiously as possible, with an endeavour to conclude it within six months from the filing of the complaint.

In Indian Bank Association v. Union of India, (2014) 5 SCC 590, the Supreme Court issued procedural directions to facilitate speedy disposal of Section 138 complaints, including timely examination of the complainant.

In Expeditious Trial of Cases Under Section 138 of NI Act, 1881, In re, (2021) 16 SCC 116, the Supreme Court addressed systemic delay and issued directions intended to improve the conduct and disposal of such cases.

The Court also referred to Sanjabij Tari v. Kishore S. Borcar, (2025) 259 Comp Cas 685, regarding continuing pendency and effective disposal of cheque-dishonour cases.

The Court considered the statutory and precedential emphasis on expeditious disposal alongside the petitioner’s account of prolonged pendency and the Trial Court’s recorded findings that the accused’s non-appearance and requests for adjournments had delayed the proceedings.

Without addressing the merits of the complaint or directing how it should be adjudicated, the Court considered it appropriate to require the Trial Court to guard against unnecessary adjournments and to endeavour to conclude the case expeditiously.

It did not prescribe a fixed deadline or express any view on the merits of the complaint.

The petition and pending application were disposed of.