Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:69285 Court No. - 73 Case :- APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 9818 of 2025 Applicant :- Amit Kumar Agrawal Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Ananya Upadhyay,Rakesh Chandra Upadhyay Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Vikas Budhwar,J. 1. Heard Sri Ramesh Chandra Upadhyay along with Sri Rakesh Chandra Upadhyay, learned counsel for the applicant, Sri S.P. Singh, learned State Law Officer for the State and Sri Sunil Kumar AOR No. A/S0787/2016 holding brief of Sri Rashid Ali, learned counsel for opposite party no.2. 2. A joint statement has been made by the learned counsel for the parties that they do not propose to file any affidavit and the application be decided on the basis of the documents available on record. With consent of the parties, the application is being decided at the fresh stage. 3. The case of the applicant is that a complaint was lodged by the opposite party no.2 against the applicant with respect to the dishonouring of cheque exposing the applicant to the offences under Sections 138 NI Act. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that during the proceedings under Section 138 NI Act on 13.08.2024, the date was fixed for adducing of evidence by the accused. However, the applicant accused did not adduce evidence and thereafter an order came to be passed on 16.09.2024 recording that the accused does not propose to lead any evidence. Thereafter, the complainant preferred an application No.14B, in which, a date was fixed and on 26.11.2024, due to inadvertent error, the date was fixed for adducing evidence. Despite the fact that already evidences had been closed on 16.09.2024 and the date for final hearing was fixed. On 02.01.2025, the applicant/accused preferred an application to produce DW-1 as his witness and the examination whereof should concluded on 27.01.2025 and thereafter on 04.02.2025, an application came to be preferred by the applicant/accused and on 05.02.2025, the applicant/accused sought to bring on record the affidavit of DW-2 and on 11.02.2025 adjournment was sought and a last opportunity was also accorded by the Court to the applicant/accused. However, on 14.02.2025 again adjournment was sought. Thereafter, 25.02.2025 was the date fixed for submission of the documents/evidence but nothing was done at the end of the applicant/accused and on 27.02.2025 again an application was preferred on account of illness of DW-2. The court below rejected the said application on 01.03.2025 holding that there is nothing on record as even the medical report of DW1 was not placed. 4. Questioning the said order, the applicant has filed the present application. 5. Learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that the statements and the evidences of DW1 was of paramount importance as the entire case of the applicant/accused hinges upon the same. He submits that court has to keep in mind the ground realities and further on mere technicalities or inconvenience so made to the litigants, the merit should not be compromised. He submits that the order be set aside. 6. Sri Sunil Kumar Singh holding brief of Rashid Ali, learned counsel for opposite party no.2 submits that from the narration of the facts in the order impugned itself shows that it is a classic example of dilatory tactics adopted by the applicant. However, he submits that his client is interested in getting the proceedings decided within a time bound period and, in case, the order in question is set aside then, the applicant should not take any adjournment. 7. Learned AGA has supported the arguments of the counsel for the opposite party no.2. 8. Having heard these submissions so made across the bar, the Court is of the opinion that in the interest of justice, the order dated 01.03.2025 is liable to be set aside. Accordingly, the order dated 01.03.2025 passed in Case No.7392 of 2023 (Mohammad Izhar vs. Amit Kumar Agarwal) under Section 138 NI Act is set aside. The court below shall proceed with the matter in accordance with law without granting unnecessary adjournments and in case adjournment is granted, the same shall be on exceptional circumstances and not a matter of routine and, in case, in any eventuality adjournment is granted then, the same should not be beyond 7 days at a stretch. 9. Counsel for the applicant has also made a statement as per instructions from his client that his client will not take unnecessary adjournments. It is further clarified that the court below shall conclude the proceedings strictly in accordance with the law as per the mandate under sub-section 3 of Section 143 of the NI Act. 10. With the aforesaid observation, the application stands disposed of. Order Date :- 1.5.2025 Priya (Vikas Budhwar, J.) Digitally signed by :- PRIYA KUSHWAHA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad