Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:33223 Court No. - 12 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 529 BNSS No. - 27 of 2025 Applicant :- Umesh Chandra Yadav Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. Thru. The Prin. Secy. Home U.P. Lko. And 2 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Anil Kumar Tiwari,Amit Kumar Tiwari Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Alok Mathur,J. 1. Heard Sri Mahmood Alam, learned counsel for the applicant and the A.G.A. on behalf of the State. 2. It has been submitted on behalf of the applicant that a complaint was lodged by the applicant stating that he and other parties had deposited/invested in Lbry Benefit Nidhi Limited (CIN NO. U65929UP2018PLC105899). The accused has promised to return the deposit amount of the applicant and other parties with interest but failed to do so. It is further stated that opposite party No.2 had given a cheque to the applicant and other parties of the principal amount only which was dishonored and consequently legal notice was sent to opposite party No.2 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 by the trial court. 3. A perusal of the order sheet indicates that summons were issued firstly on 21.01.2025 and date was fixed for 04.04.2025 for appearance of opposite party No.2. The accused appeared before the trial court through this counsel. The complaint was admitted/ registered on 16.04.2024 but since then the Complaint Case No. 877/2021 "Umesh Chandra Vs. Ankit Agrahari" pertaining to Police Station Kotwali Ayodhya, District Faizabad/ Ayodhya is pending before the Trial Court. 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 andand date was fixed for 04.04.2025 for appearance of opposite party No.2 and 3. The accused appeared before the trial court through this counsel. The complaint was admitted/ registered on 16.04.2024 but since then the complaint case is pending before the Trial Court, 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 :- 29.5.2025 (Manoj K.) Digitally signed by :- MANOJ KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench