2025:UHC:3314 HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Criminal Misc Application No. 495 of 2025 30 April, 2025 Neeru Saini --Petitioner Versus Keshav Kumar --Respondent ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Presence:- Ms. Manju Chauhan, Advocate for the petitioner. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Hon'ble Vivek Bharti Sharma, J. This C528 petition has been filed to direct the learned 1st Additional Civil Judge(J.D.), Haridwar, District Haridwar to decide the Complaint Case No.1448 of 2022, “Neeru Saini Vs. Keshav Kumar”, under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act, P.S. Kotwali Haridwar pending before the 1st Additional Civil Judge (J.D.), Haridwar, District Haridwar, as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of two months or within time frame stipulated by this Court. 2. By the impugned order, learned Trial Court summoned the respondent /accused to face the trial for the offences punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act 1881 (for short “N.I. Act”). 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner /complainant would submit that presently the case is pending for statement of accused under Section 251 Cr.P.C.; that, the respondent / accused is unnecessary delaying the proceeding 1 2025:UHC:3314 and due to dilatory tactics adopted by the respondent/accused the case could not be concluded as yet; that, around 2 years and 9 months have been lapsed from the date of filing of the complaint and the proceedings are still pending, therefore, the Trial Court may be directed to decide the case of the petitioner/complainant, as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of two months or within time frame stipulated by this Court. 4. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the records. 5. Perusal of the order sheets of the Trial Court would reflect that the petitioner/complainant herself remain absent on several occasions when the matter was listed for hearing before the Trial Court. Therefore, the petitioner/complainant is herself responsible for delaying the proceedings of the Trial Court. 6. In the considered view of this Court, it is not a fit case, in which, the High Court in exercise of its inherent jurisdiction under Section 528 B.N.S.S. should venture into the propriety of the matter. 7. In view of the above, there is no good ground made out to entertain the present petition, accordingly, the C528 petition fails and is hereby dismissed in limine. (Vivek Bharti Sharma, J.) 30.04.2025 ss 2