1 2025:CGHC:8862 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRMP No. 633 of 2025 1 - M/s Jai Jagdish Transport Through Its Patner Vivek Agrawal, S/o Shri Kailash Agrawal Aged About 41 Years, Office At G-32, Hira Arcade, Pandri, Raipur, Tehsil And District Raipur, Chhattisgarh. (Complainant) ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - M/s Thanvi Associates Through Its Proprietor- K. Nageshwar Rao, S/o Shri K. Bhaskar Rao, Address C-7, 2nd Floor, Pavan Enclave, Daba Gardens, Ward No. 27, Vishakhapatnam, Andhra Pradesh. Alternative Address- 25-1, 300/20-1, Revenue, Ward 61, Y- Junction, Gajuwaka, Vishakhapatnam, Andhra Pradesh. Aternative Address- R/o 43-19-29/a, Flat No. 101, C B R Enclave, T S N Colony, Dondaparthi, Near Bata Showroom Vishakhapatnam, Andhra Pradesh (530016) 2 - K. Nageshwar Rao Proprietor Of M/s Thanvi Associates, S/o Shri K. Bhaskar Rao, Address C-7, 2nd Floor, Pavan Enclave, Daba Gardens, Ward No. 27, Vishakhapatnam, Andhra Pradesh. Alternative Address- 25-1, 300/20-1, Revenue, Ward 61, Y- Junction, Gajuwaka, Vishakhapatnam, Andhra Pradesh. Aternative Address- R/o 43-19-29/a, Flat No. 101, C B R Enclave, T S N Colony, Dondaparthi, Near Bata Showroom Vishakhapatnam, Andhra Pradesh (530016) ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Ayush Mahishwar on behalf of Mr. Ankit Singhal, Advocate For Respondent(s) : 2 Hon’ble Shri Justice Arvind Kumar Verma, Judge Order on Board 20/02/2025 1. The present petition is filed by the petitioner under Section 528 of BNSS, 2023 for issuance of appropriate direction or order with respect to complaint case No. 6422/2022-M/s Jai Jagdish Transport Vs. M/s Thanvi Associates & Another. 2. Brief facts of the case is that the Petitioner firm is engaged in the business of transport, sale of tyres, and repairs of vehicles. Respondent no. 1 herein is a firm that had business relations with the petitioner. Respondent no. 2 is the managing partner of Respondent No.1 firm, responsible for all the day to day running tasks and decisions taken by Respondent No. 1firm. The Respondent No.1 through his managing partner has availed the services of the petitioner firm in the financial year 2020-21, including transport services amounting to Rs. 88,34,891/-, purchase of tyres worth Rs. 2,89,85,783/- and repair work to the tune of Rs. 3,32,728/- thereafter, taking into account the part payments made, a total outstanding amount of Rs. 2,04,83,619/- remained due and payable. Against the said outstanding amount, the petitioner and respondent firms entered into a Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) on 5th July, 2021 under the terms of which several post-dated cheques were issued by the Respondent firm to the petitioner. Despite the MoU entered between the parties, an the multiple opportunities to make good their outstanding debts, the respondent firm and its partner remained evasive and continued to miss payment deadlines and make excuses for the same. As a result, the petitioner was forced to present the post- dated cheques issued by the Respondent to the bank to realize its dues. However, the cheques were dishonoured and returned 3 stating "insufficient funds." As a result of the above, the Petitioner firm filed multiple complaints against the present respondents for offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, for each of the individual cheques, pursuant to which multiple complaint cases including the impugned Complaint Case bearing no. 6422/2022 was registered against them. The respondents appeared before the Learned Trial court in the aforementioned complaint case and pleaded "not guilty' to the accusations made in the complaint. However, due to the actions of the respondents, inordinate delay in the conclusion of the trial is being occasioned, which is causing severe financial hardship to the petitioner. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the proceedings in the Trial Court has been going on for more than two years, despite the fact that the cases involving dishonour of cheques are required to be disposed of on an urgent basis. The copy of order sheets of the trial pending in the trial court clearly demonstrates that the present respondents are frivolously and unnecessarily stretching the proceedings in order to frustrate the petitioner as well as the judicial system. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and considered his submissions made hereinabove and also went through the records with utmost circumspection. 5. Considering the aforesaid fact that the matter relates to the dishonour of cheque amounting to Rs. 20,00,000. Also, it is desirable that Courts should deal with such cases under the NI Act in summary and speedy manner so as to reduce the burden on the court docket and to provide faster relief to payees maintaining faith in the system of commercial transactions through the medium of cheques. and under NI Act, and also considering the point that the trial is at the stage of witness examination, this Court finds that the matter is subjudice and is under consideration before the learned Trial Court. 4 6. Therefore, the Learned Trial Court is directed to conclude the trial expeditiously preferably within 12 months, if there is no legal impediment. 7. In view of the above, the present Cr.M.P. stands disposed off. 8. Let a copy of this order and the original records be transmitted to the trial court concerned forthwith for necessary information and compliance. Sd/- (Arvind Kumar Verma) JUDGE Madhurima