The Madras High Court has issued a strong directive to prevent procedural stagnation in private criminal complaints under the Negotiable Instruments Act, emphasizing that delays orchestrated through repeated mediation and adjournments cannot override the right to a speedy trial. This judgment reinforces judicial accountability in trial courts handling cheque bounce cases, setting a clear timeline for conclusion.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
The petitioner, M.G. Janakiraman, proprietor of M/s. J.J. Enterprises, filed a private criminal complaint against the respondent, Somasundaram, a retired District Revenue Officer, for an offence under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act. The complaint arose from the dishonour of a cheque issued as payment for goods supplied, which was returned unpaid due to insufficient funds.
Key Facts
- The private complaint was filed and taken on file as C.C. No. 87 of 2023
- Summons were issued and the respondent appeared before the Trial Court on 31.08.2023
- The petitioner completed his chief examination on 14.05.2025
- Between 04.10.2023 and 07.04.2025, the case was adjourned multiple times for recording evidence
- On 14.05.2025, the case was referred to Lok Adalat for settlement, remaining pending until 28.08.2025
- After failure of Lok Adalat, the matter was posted and adjourned between 13.09.2025 and 14.11.2025 for respondent’s appearance
- On 19.12.2025, the respondent requested mediation, which failed due to his non-appearance
- The case was next posted for cross-examination of the petitioner on 18.04.2026
- The petitioner produced a compromise letter from the respondent, indicating prior willingness to settle
Procedural History
- 2023: Private complaint filed under Section 138 NI Act
- 31.08.2023: Respondent appeared and initial questioning completed
- 04.10.2023 to 07.04.2025: Multiple adjournments for evidence recording
- 14.05.2025: Petitioner’s chief examination concluded
- 14.05.2025 to 28.08.2025: Case referred to Lok Adalat
- 13.09.2025 to 14.11.2025: Adjournments for respondent’s non-appearance
- 19.12.2025: Mediation initiated, failed due to respondent’s absence
- 18.04.2026: Case posted for cross-examination of complainant
- 09.04.2026: Criminal Original Petition filed before Madras High Court
Relief Sought
The petitioner sought a direction to the Trial Court to dispose of C.C. No. 87 of 2023 within a fixed time frame, alleging deliberate delay by the respondent, a retired government official, to frustrate the proceedings.
The Legal Issue
The central question was whether a Trial Court may indefinitely postpone proceedings in a private complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act under the pretext of settlement or mediation, even after the complainant’s evidence is complete and the accused has repeatedly failed to participate in alternative dispute resolution.
Arguments Presented
For the Petitioner
The petitioner’s counsel argued that the case had been unduly delayed for over two years despite completion of the complainant’s chief examination in May 2025. He contended that repeated referrals to Lok Adalat and mediation, followed by the respondent’s non-appearance, were tactics to prolong litigation. He cited the principle of speedy trial under Article 21 of the Constitution and relied on State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal to argue that delay in criminal proceedings, especially in cheque bounce cases, amounts to denial of justice.
For the Respondent
The respondent did not appear before the High Court, and no written submissions were filed. The Court noted the absence of any justification for the delays from the respondent’s side.
The Court's Analysis
The Court observed that while mediation and settlement are encouraged under Section 138A of the NI Act, they cannot be used as tools to indefinitely stall trial proceedings. The Court noted that the complainant had completed his evidence in May 2025, yet the matter remained pending for nearly a year due to procedural delays initiated by the respondent.
"The proceedings have been unduly protracted. Though the complaint was filed in the year 2023 and the evidence of the complainant was closed in 2025, the matter has been kept pending under the guise of mediation and settlement, which is not justified."
The Court rejected the notion that the respondent’s status as a retired official conferred any immunity from procedural accountability. It emphasized that the right to a speedy trial is not a privilege but a constitutional guarantee, particularly in cases where the complainant has no other remedy but to pursue criminal prosecution.
The Court further held that the Trial Court has a duty to ensure that cases under Section 138 NI Act are disposed of expeditiously, especially when the complainant has already completed his evidence and the accused has failed to engage meaningfully in settlement efforts.
The Verdict
The Madras High Court allowed the petition. It directed the Trial Court to complete the cross-examination of the petitioner on 18.04.2026 and proceed on a day-to-day basis thereafter. The Court mandated that the entire trial must be concluded within three months from 18.04.2026. The Trial Court was further directed to file a compliance report before the High Court within seven days of concluding the trial.
What This Means For Similar Cases
Delay Cannot Be Masked as Settlement
- Practitioners must now argue that repeated adjournments under the guise of mediation or Lok Adalat, without genuine participation by the accused, constitute abuse of process
- Courts must scrutinize whether settlement efforts are bona fide or merely tactical delays
- A complainant’s completed evidence must trigger a timeline-bound trial process
Accountability of Parties in NI Act Cases
- The status of the accused (retired official, public servant, etc.) cannot be invoked to justify delay
- Courts must record reasons for any adjournment beyond 30 days after evidence is complete
- Failure to appear in mediation or Lok Adalat must be noted and used as a factor against the non-cooperating party
Mandatory Time-Bound Trials
- In all Section 138 cases where evidence is complete, trial courts must set a 90-day deadline for conclusion
- Day-to-day hearings must commence immediately after cross-examination begins
- Non-compliance by Trial Courts must be challenged via writ petitions under Article 226
