IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Cr. MMO No. 155 of 2026. Reserved on: 11.03.2026. Date of Decision: 19.03.2026 Himachal Co-operative Non-Thrift and Credit Society Ltd. ...Petitioner. Versus State of H.P. & Anr. ...Respondents. Coram Hon’ble Mr Justice Rakesh Kainthla, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 No. For the Petitioner : Mr Ganesh Barowalia, Advocate. For the Respondent-State : Mr Jitender K. Sharma, Addl. A.G. Rakesh Kainthla, Judge The petitioner has filed the present petition for issuance of directions to the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Solan, for expeditious trial of Complaint Case No. 185/2019 filed for the commission of an offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act (N.I. Act). 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes. 2 2. Mr Ganesh Barowalia, Advocate, learned counsel for the petitioner, relied upon the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Sanjabij Tari vs. Koshore S. Borcar & Anr., Cr. Appeal No. 1755 of 2010, 2025 INSC 1158 and Parvesh Kumar vs. Manmohan, Cr.MMO No.542 of 2023, decided on 0.2.06.2023, to submit that such a direction can be issued. 3. I have given considerable thought to the submissions made at the bar and have gone through the records carefully. 4. It was laid down in M. Gopalakrishnan v. Pasumpon Muthuramalingam, 2022 SCC OnLine SC 1968, that any order of expediting the hearing might upset the calendar and schedule of the subordinate Court, and might result in assigning an unwarranted priority to that particular case over and above other cases pending in that Court. It was observed: - “4. Looking to the nature of the order passed by the High Court, we are not inclined to grant leave to appeal in this matter but feel impelled to observe that ordinarily, before passing any such order for expeditious proceedings in a particular case (which might appear to be rather of innocuous nature), it would be appropriate for the higher Court to appreciate that any such order for one case, without cogent and extremely compelling reasons, might upset the calendar and schedule of the subordinate Court; might result in assigning an unwarranted priority to that particular case over and above other cases pending in that Court; and progression 3 of such other cases might suffer for no reason and none of the faults of the litigants involved therein.” 5. This position was reiterated in Shaikh Uzma Feroz Hussain vs. State of Maharashtra Writ Petition Criminal no. 587 of 2023, decided on 10.11.2023 (SC), wherein it was observed: “We are of the view that since every High Court and every Court in the country has a huge pendency, the Constitutional Court should avoid the temptation of fixing a time-bound schedule for the disposal of any case before any Court unless the situation is extraordinary.” 6. A similar view was taken in Allahabad High Court Bar Assn. v. State of U.P., (2024) 6 SCC 267: 2024 SCC OnLine SC 207 wherein it was observed: “41. Therefore, constitutional Courts should not normally fix a time-bound schedule for the 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. 42. There is another important reason for adopting the said approach. Not every litigant can easily afford to file proceedings in the Constitutional Courts. Those litigants who can afford to approach the constitutional Courts cannot be allowed to take undue advantage by getting an order directing out-of-turn disposal of their cases while all other litigants patiently wait in the queue for their turn to come. The Courts, superior in the judicial 4 hierarchy, cannot interfere with the day-to-day functioning of the other Courts by directing that only certain cases should be decided out of turn within a time frame. In a sense, no Court of law is inferior to the other. This Court is not superior to the High Courts in the judicial hierarchy. Therefore, the Judges of the High Courts should be allowed to set their priorities on a rational basis. Thus, as far as setting the outer limit is concerned, it should be best left to the concerned Courts unless there are very extraordinary circumstances.” 7. Therefore, it is impermissible to issue a direction for expediting the trial. 8. In Sanjabij Tari (supra), the Hon’ble Supreme Court devised a procedure for expeditious trial of the cases; however, the judgment nowhere mentions that a direction can be issued for the expeditious trial of the case. Parvesh Kumar (supra) was delivered before the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Allahabad High Court Bar Association, (supra), and cannot be relied upon in view of the Constitution Bench judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court. Therefore, the cited judgments will not help the petitioner. 8. In view of the above, a direction cannot be issued to the learned Trial Court to expedite the hearing; however, it is expected and hoped that the learned Trial Court will make the efforts to expeditiously dispose of the matter, subject to the co- 5 operation of the petitioner. A copy of this order be sent to the learned Trial Court for information. 9. The present petition stands disposed of, and so are the pending applications, if any. (Rakesh Kainthla) Judge 19 March, 2026 (jai)