2026:UHC:3602 SL. No. Dat e Office Not es, r epor t s, or der s or pr oceedin gs or dir ect ion s an d Regist r ar ’s or der w it h Sign at u r es COURT’S OR JUDGE’S ORDERS C528 No.896 of 2026 Hon ’ble Alok Mah r a, J. Mr. Bilal Ahmed, Advocate for the applicant. Mrs. Pushpa Bhatt, Additional Advocate General for the State of Uttarakhand. 2. This criminal misc. application has been filed by the applicant challenging the order dated 24.01.2026, whereby his opportunity for adducing defence evidence has been closed. 3. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. Upon perusal of the order sheets, it transpires that on 24.11.2025, the learned Magistrate granted time to the applicant for adducing defence evidence and fixed 06.01.2026 for the said purpose. However, on the date fixed, no defence evidence was produced and an adjournment was sought on behalf of the applicant. Considering the request, the learned Magistrate granted further time as a last opportunity for adducing defence evidence and fixed 24.01.2026. On 24.01.2026 also, the applicant neither adduced any defence evidence nor showed sufficient cause for non-production of the same and again sought adjournment. In such circumstances, the learned Magistrate, having no other efficacious option available, closed the opportunity of the applicant to adduce defence evidence and fixed the matter for 28.02.2026. It further appears from the record that even thereafter, on 28.02.2026, an adjournment application was again moved by the applicant and the matter was adjourned to 27.03.2026. Subsequently, the applicant moved an application under Section 311 Cr.P.C., which 2026:UHC:3602 too came to be rejected by the learned Judicial Magistrate-II, Roorkee, District Haridwar vide order dated 27.03.2026. 4. This Court finds no illegality, perversity or jurisdictional error in the impugned order dated 24.01.2026. Adequate and sufficient opportunities had already been granted to the applicant for adducing defence evidence, but despite repeated indulgence shown by the Court below, the applicant failed to avail the same. It is well settled that adjournments cannot be sought as a matter of right and the trial Court is fully empowered to regulate proceedings to ensure expeditious disposal of cases. Moreover, the complaint case pertains to proceedings under the Negotiable Instruments Act and has remained pending since the year 2024. Section 143(3) of the Negotiable Instruments Act mandates that such cases should be tried as expeditiously as possible and preferably concluded within six months from the date of institution of the complaint. The conduct of the applicant clearly reflects an attempt to prolong the proceedings, which defeats the very object of the statute. 5. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, this Court does not find any ground warranting interference in the matter. 6. Accordingly, the present Criminal Miscellaneous Application, being devoid of merits, is dismissed. ( Alok Mah r a, J.) 12.05.2026 Arpan ARPAN JAISWAL Digitally signed by ARPAN JAISWAL DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, ou=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, 2.5.4.20=eabb68a3895e41937c266c23964c0485365445e3 a20dddb7393398f9fe45ba3e, postalCode=263001, st=UTTARAKHAND, serialNumber=060FC17022BEAE3DE215D68D9D454C5109 CB987446351E4DF04AADAA2C2CEA66, cn=ARPAN JAISWAL Date: 2026.05.12 18:16:14 +05'30'