IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK CRLMC No.1375 of 2024 Haribinder Singh Deengra …. Petitioner(s) Mr. A. U. Senapati, Advocate -versus- Krupasindhu Gahan …. Opp. Party(s) Mr. Sk. Zafarulla, Advocate CORAM: JUSTICE SIBO SANKAR MISHRA Order No. ORDER 09.01.2025 06. 1. Heard. 2. In this petition, the petitioner is seeking quashing of the entire criminal proceeding initiated against him in connection with 1.C.C. Case No.18 of 2019 pending in the Court of the learned S.D.J.M., Talcher for the alleged commission of offence under Section 138 of the N.I. Act. 3. The petitioner had earlier approached this Court by filing CRLMC No.1032 of 2012 challenging the order dated 16.04.2009 passed by the learned S.D.J.M., Talcher in 1.C.C. Case No.18 of 2019, whereby cognizance of the offence punishable under Section 138 of the N.I. Act has been taken against him. The matter was pending from the year 2012 up till 2022. The petitioner had obtained stay of the further proceeding. Eventually, on 22.03.2022, none appeared for the petitioner, as a result of which, CRLMC No.1032 of 2012 has been dismissed for non-prosecution. 4. The petitioner has now approached this Court afresh by filing the present petition on various grounds including the ground as has been urged by him in the earlier round of litigation. In the present petition, he has not even disclosed regarding the earlier proceeding he had resorted to. 5. Learned counsel for the opposite party No.2 hands up copy of the proceeding dated 22.03.2022 in CRLMC No.1032 of 2012 and submits that the petitioner has concealed the order from the Court as such not entitled to any relief because he has not approached the Court with the clean hands. The proceeding under Section 138 of the N.I. Act was initiated in the year 2009 and the petitioner could successfully drag the matter for about fifteen years. 6. Because of the conduct of the petitioner, I am not inclined to entertain the present petition. Moreover, for the particular reason that Section 143(2) of the N.I. Act the statutorily mandate for conclusion of the trial of the complaint under Section 138 of the N.I. Act within a period of six months. However, in the instant case, the petitioner could successfully prolong the trial of the complaint case for about fifteen years. Hence, no interference is called for. 7. With this observation, the CRLMC is disposed of. (S.S. Mishra) Judge Swarna