HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD APPLICATION U/S 529 BNSS No. - 4154 of 2026 Court No. - 78 HON'BLE DR. AJAY KUMAR-II, J. 1. Heard Mr. Hitesh Pachori, learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record. 2. The present application under Section 529 of BNSS has been filed by the applicant with a prayer to direct the learned trial Court to conclude the proceedings of Case No. 78342/2021 (Old No. 935/2021) (Shachish Kumar Samadhia vs. Smt. Aruna Gaur), under section 138 of Negotiable Instrument Act, Police Station Sikandra, District Agra, expeditiously within the stipulated period, pending in the Court of learned Presiding Officer, Court No. 2, Agra. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the proceedings before the Court concerned be directed to be concluded in a time-bound manner. It is submitted by learned counsel for the applicant that in this case, a complaint under Section 138 N.I. Act was filed before the learned trial Court on 14.09.2021, which complaint is still pending and has not been decided till date. Therefore, he requested that a direction to the learned trial Court be issued to decide the aforesaid case within a stipulated period of time. 4. Learned A.G.A. has no objection in this regard if the Court below is not already overloaded with huge pendency of such cases. 5. Hon'ble Apex Court in Shaikh Uzma Feroz Hussain vs. State of Maharashtra in Writ Petition (Criminal) No. 587 of 2023 has observed that every High Court and every Court in the country has a huge pendency, Versus Counsel for Applicant(s) : Hitesh Pachori Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A. Shachish Kumar Samadhia .....Applicant(s) State of U.P. and Another .....Opposite Party(s) the constitutional Court should avoid temptation of fixing a time bound schedule for disposal of any case before any Court unless the situation is extraordinary. 6. Hon'ble Apex Court in High Court Bar Association, Allahabad vs. State of U.P. and others, (2024) 6 SCC 267 has observed in paragraph 42, which is reproduced as under:- "Constitutional Courts should not normally fix a time-bound schedule for disposal of cases pending in any Court. The pattern of pendency of various categories of cases pending in every Court, including High Courts, is different. The situation at the grassroots level is better known to the judges of the concerned Courts. Therefore, the issue of giving out-of-turn priority to certain cases should be best left to the concerned Courts. The orders fixing the outer limit for the disposal of cases should be passed only in exceptional circumstances to meet extraordinary situations." 7. Thus, law as far as issuance of a direction for time-bound/expeditious disposal has already been well settled that only when an exceptional circumstance is made out, a direction for time-bound/expeditious disposal of such a case can be issued not otherwise. 8. Learned counsel for the applicant has failed to make out any exceptional circumstances to issue direction for time-bound/expeditious disposal of case, at this stage. Accordingly, relief sought by way of present application is hereby refused. 9. Considering the nature of prayer made by learned counsel for the applicant, the interest of justice would be served, in the event, the applicant applies before the Court concerned for expeditious disposal of the above mentioned case. Therefore, the applicant is given a liberty to move an appropriate application before trial Court concerned for bringing out all such facts, which are necessary for expeditious disposal of her case within two weeks from today and in case, such an application is moved, the trial Court shall decide the same within four weeks from the date of filing of such application. If, trial Court comes to the conclusion that the case for expeditious disposal is made out, then in that eventuality, it shall decide the same as expeditiously as possible within a reasonable period. NA529 No. 4154 of 2026 2 10. A perusal of certified copy of order-sheets reveals that case was fixed for cross-examination of PW-2 on 11.01.2024 and on 11.01.2024, an exemption application was moved on behalf of accused and his learned counsel also failed to turn up. In this situation, the aforesaid exemption application was allowed subject to payment of cost of Rs. 1000/- by giving a last opportunity to cross-examine the witness. Thereafter, again an exemption application was moved on 07.02.2024 but his learned counsel failed to turn up for cross- examination the witness, therefore, opportunity to cross-examine the witness, in Court was closed and the file was fixed for recording the statement under section 313 Cr.P.C. However, accused continuously remain absent and on 29.07.2024, NBW against accused and sureties were issued. However, neither NBW nor aforesaid notice was served and thus, this case is held up at this stage. 11. This Court would like to draw the attention of the Court concerned that whenever NBW or BW or any other process is issued against either accused or witness, then such Court is duty bound to make all endeavour for ensuring execution of such NBW or BW or other process. It is the bounden duty of every police officer promptly to obey and execute all orders and warrants lawfully issued to him by virtue of Section 23 of the Police Act, 1861. If such police officer violates his duty or neglect any lawful order passed by such Court, then he becomes guilty under Section 29 of the Police Act. Therefore, the Courts are not powerless to ensure compliance of it's order/ or execution of lawful process issued by it. 12. It is also provided that in the event there is any legal impediment before the Court concerned in disposal of the case, then the Court concerned shall pass an appropriate order disclosing the legal impediment as to why the proceedings of the above mentioned case cannot be proceeded with. 13. With the aforesaid observations/direction, the present application is disposed of. September 9, 2026 Monika NA529 No. 4154 of 2026 3 (Dr. Ajay Kumar-II,J.) Digitally signed by :- MONIKA KESARWANI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad