Sharmila Ramji vs Sudhakar Rajachar

V Srishananda, J

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner Sri. Vikas M.

The petition is filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India read with Section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (hereinafter referred to as "BNSS, 2023" for short), with the following prayers:

"i) Issue a writ of certiorari, quashing the impugned order dated 09.04.2025 passed in C.C.No. 33983 of 2021 in the Court of XV ACJM, Bengaluru, vide Annexure-A;

ii) issue a writ of mandamus directing the Court of XV ACJM, Bengaluru to conclude trial expeditiously in C.C.No.33983/2021 vide Annexure B;

iii) Issue any other writ or order or direction that deems fit to grant in the circumstances of the case in the interest of justice and equity."

Petitioner is the complainant, who launched the prosecution for dishonour of the cheque said to have been issued by the accused, which is now pending in C.C.No.33983/2021, on the file of the XV Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate at Bengaluru. The trial was prolonged by the accused on one pretext or the other. Order sheet filed along with the petition discloses that the accused had filed an application under Section 145 (2) of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 (hereinafter for brevity referred to as the "N.I. Act"), which was allowed and complainant was permitted to be cross-examined by the accused. Several opportunities were granted to the accused to cross-examine PW-1. When the matter stood for evidence of the accused, an application under Section 311 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter for brevity referred to as the "Cr.P.C."), came to be filed, to recall the complainant (PW-1) for further cross-examination. Learned Trial Judge, in paragraph 7 of his order, following the dictum of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of V.N. PATIL Vs. K. NIRANJAN KUMAR AND OTHERS, reported in (2021) 3 SUPREME COURT CASES 661, noticed that a fair opportunity is to be granted to the accused in the trial and allowed the application on payment of cost of Rs.3,000/- payable by the accused to the petitioner.

It is the grievance of the petitioner herein that the Trial Magistrate, despite granting several opportunities and noting that the complainant (PW-1) was cross-examined at length on 14.10.2022, 09.12.2022, 09.09.2024, 02.12.2024, has again allowed the accused to further cross-examine the complainant, ignoring the presumption which is enjoyed by the complainant under Section 139 of the N.I. Act, resulting in mis-carriage of justice and therefore, sought for admitting the present petition and setting aside the order at Annexure A.

This Court, having noticed the attendant facts and circumstances of the case and also taking note of the fact that the accused has already cross-examined the complainant at length as is observed by the learned Trial Judge, is of the considered opinion that, if the trial is expedited, ends of justice would be met, instead of keeping the matter pending before this Court.

Accordingly, the following:

ORDER

(i) The Writ Petition is dismissed.

(ii) However, the learned Trial Magistrate shall strictly adhere to the directions issued by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Indian Bank Association and Ors. Vs. Union of India and Another reported in (2014) 5 Supreme Court Cases 590 and conclude the trial as early as possible, more so, having entertained the application under Section 145 (2) of the N.I. Act and allowed the accused to cross-examine PW-1, as referred to supra.

(iii) It is made clear that, on the next date of hearing, if PW-1 is not cross-examined by the accused, the accused looses his chance to cross-examine PW-1 further.

(iv) The Trial Magistrate shall conclude the trial, as early as possible, but not later than 31.07.2025.