High Court upholds trial court's closure of defence opportunity in long‑pending cheque‑bounce case, refuses to quash proceedings

A single‑judge bench of Justice Satya Veer Singh of the Allahabad High Court heard an application under Section 528 BNSS, 2023 filed by Brijesh Kumar seeking to quash the judgment and order dated 16.10.2025 of the Judicial Magistrate, Court No. 22, Azamgarh in a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The petition challenged the trial court's refusal to reopen the defence case and to permit production of an expert handwriting verification report after the trial court had closed the opportunity for defence evidence on 18.08.2025.

The High Court refused the petition and upheld the impugned order, finding no illegality or procedural infirmity in the trial court's decision to close further opportunity when the accused had not pursued earlier opportunities to produce the expert report. The Court noted the legislative and judicial insistence on expeditious disposal of Section 138 trials and recorded concern over excessive delay in the instant matter, where the complaint was filed on 01.02.2013 and nearly 13 years had elapsed. The Court, in its reasoning, observed: "The N.I. Act is a special act. The summary trial in N.I. Act is for quick disposal. The intent of the legislation is to try the cases on a day-to-day basis until their conclusion, as expeditiously as possible, within six months, and the object is to facilitate smooth transactions by cheque." The bench further remarked on the corrosive effect of protracted litigation and reiterated that summary trial provisions and Supreme Court directions required strict adherence.

Background:
The dispute arose from a complaint filed under Section 138 N.I. Act in February 2013. During the summary trial before the Judicial Magistrate, the complainant completed examination‑in‑chief and cross‑examination of witnesses and the accused's statement under Section 313 was recorded on 30.07.2021, where the accused stated that he would produce defence evidence. The accused intermittently sought adjournments and filed applications on 11.08.2022 and 10.01.2023; on 18.04.2023 a sample signature of the accused was obtained by the expert, but subsequent pursuit of expert verification did not occur. After repeated reminders by the trial court, the court closed the opportunity for defence evidence on 18.08.2025. The accused filed a fresh application on 08.09.2025 seeking reopening to allow production of a handwriting expert's report; the trial court rejected that application on 16.10.2025, prompting the present petition under Section 528 BNSS.

The State opposed the challenge, emphasising that complaints under Section 138 were summary in nature and must be disposed of expeditiously, relying on Supreme Court precedents including Damodar S. Prabhu v. Sayed Babalal H., Indian Bank Association v. Union of India, Meters & Instruments v. Kanchan Mehta, and the In Re: Expeditious Trial of Cases under Section 138 (Suo Motu) directions. The High Court reviewed statutory provisions inserted into the N.I. Act (Sections 143–145 and 143A) and recent apex‑court guidelines in Sanjabij Tari v. Kishore S. Borcar & Anr., which emphasised measures for quick disposal, compounding and other administrative reforms. The High Court observed the extraordinary delay in the present matter and invoked the canonical maxim that "Justice Delayed is Justice Denied," noting the right to speedy trial under Article 21. However, on the facts the Court found that the accused had been repeatedly granted opportunities and had not pursued expert verification in a timely manner; consequently, the trial court's closure of the defence opportunity was not arbitrary or illegal. The High Court declined to issue notice to the second opposite party at that stage, refused to quash the impugned order or the entire proceedings, and directed that such matters affected by delay should be expedited, with this judgment placed before the concerned District and Sessions Judge for information.

Case No.: APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 50246 of 2025
Case Title: Brijesh Kumar Versus State of U.P. and another
Appearances:
For the Petitioner(s): Binod Kumar Yadav; Raj Nath Bhakta (learned counsel)
For the Respondent(s): Mr Subhendra Singh and Mr B.P. Pandey, learned A.G.A.; G.A.

Source: 2026 CaseBase(ALL) 28