Adjournments Have Become the Norm – Not Acceptable – Karnataka High Court Orders Speedy Disposal of Cheque Bounce Case Pending Since 2016

"Courts Must Ensure Section 143(3) NI Act Timeframe Is Not Rendered Meaningless", Karnataka High Court invoked its inherent powers under Section 482 CrPC to direct the JMFC, Malavalli, to dispose of a nearly decade-old cheque dishonour case within six months. Justice Krishna S. Dixit expressed strong disapproval of repeated adjournments and a lack of adherence to the statutory time frame under Section 143(3) of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, which mandates that such cases be concluded within six months from the date of filing.

The petitioner, Smt. Chaitra, filed a complaint in 2016 under Section 138 NI Act against the respondent, alleging dishonour of a cheque issued in discharge of a lawful debt. The matter lingered in the trial court for years, with the cross-examination of PW-1 (the complainant) being repeatedly deferred on the accused’s request.

By 2024, with the trial still pending and no meaningful progress made, the petitioner moved the High Court seeking directions for an expeditious hearing.

Justice Dixit referred to Section 143(3) NI Act and its underlying purpose:

“The Parliament has prescribed a period of six months for concluding the trial of such cases… The object is to secure speedy disposal in commercial litigations of this kind so that credibility of banking transactions is maintained.”

The court noted that the provision, though directory, cannot be reduced to a dead letter by the grant of repeated adjournments:

“Adjournments have become the norm rather than an exception… This defeats the very purpose of the special procedure under the NI Act.”

The judge observed that while courts are vested with discretion to grant adjournments for valid reasons, such discretion must be exercised sparingly and with due regard to the legislative mandate of speedy trial.

The High Court directed the trial court to ensure that:

• The trial is completed within six months from the date of receipt of the order.

• Unnecessary adjournments are avoided, and evidence is recorded without delay.

Justice Dixit emphasised that both parties must cooperate fully to achieve this timeline, warning that failure to do so could invite adverse consequences.

This ruling is a reminder that cheque dishonour cases are intended to be fast-tracked and that trial courts have a duty to curb dilatory tactics that undermine legislative intent. The Karnataka High Court’s intervention underlines that the integrity of commercial transactions hinges on prompt judicial enforcement.

Date of Decision: 25 July 2025