Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:21678 Court No. - 12 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 483 No. - 316 of 2025 Applicant :- Satish Chandra Opposite Party :- Pawan Kumar And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Ram Dheeraj Hon'ble Alok Mathur,J. 1. Heard Sri Ram Dheeraj, learned counsel for the applicant. 2. In view of the order proposed to be passed notice to the opposite parties is dispensed with. 2. It has been submitted on behalf of the applicant that a complaint was lodged by the applicant stating that he had supplied paddy to the rice mill of the opposite parties for an amount of Rs.3,00,000/- but the payment was never made by them. It is further stated that the opposite parties had given a cheque to the applicant of the aforesaid amount which was dishonored and consequently legal notice was sent to the opposite parties and despite expiry of the given period when the payment was not made the applicant had filed a compliant under Section 138 of N.I. Act cognizance of which was taken up by the trial court and registered as Criminal Case No.8287/2023 under Section 138 N.I.Act and subsequently after transfer to Civil Judge (Junior Division)/F.T.C./ Judicial Magistrate, Sultanpur it has been re-registered as criminal case No.1659 of 2023 (Satish Chandra Vs. Pawan Kumar) relating to police station Kureybhar, District Sultanpur. 3. A perusal of the order sheet indicates that summons were issued firstly on 15.11.2022 and various dates have been fixed for appearance of the opposite parties but they did not appear and consequently non bailable warrants were issued on 11.3.2024 but the payment has not been made so far. It is in aforesaid circumstances that the present application has been moved for expeditious disposal of the complaint filed by the applicant. 4. In support of his submission learned counsel for the applicant has submitted hat as per Section 143 (2) it has been provided that trial in this section shall be conducted as expeditiously as possible and endeavor shall be made to conclude the trial within a period of six months from the date of filing of the complaint. 5. From a bare perusal of the aforesaid provisions it is clear that undoubtedly, the trial has to be conducted expeditiously and endeavor should be made to conclude the trial within six months from the date of filing of the complaint. Aforesaid provision clearly indicates that time limit for conclusion of a trial is clearly directory and not mandatory. Apart from the above, considering the aforesaid provision, we find that summons have been issued and the opposite parties have not put in appearance. Lastly, on 11.3.2024 non bailable warrants have also been issued and further date was fixed for 27.3.2025 and lastly the date is now fixed for 17.4.2025. Accordingly apart from the aforesaid considering that in the matter summons have been issued only in 15.11.2022 no ground for interference is made out. Also, considering that there is huge pendency in the courts of Judicial Magistrates who have been dealing with the matters under Section 138 of N.I.Act, no direction for expediting the trial can be issued at this stage. 6. However, in case the applicant feels that the trial is unduly being delayed, liberty is granted to him to move appropriate application before the trial court itself, which shall consider and dispose of the said application with expedition whenever the same is filed. 7. Subject to aforesaid direction, the application under Section 483 Cr.P.C. stands disposed of. (Alok Mathur, J.) Order Date :- 17.4.2025 RKM. Digitally signed by :- RAKESH KUMAR MAURYA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench