Disposed¶16

Raj Kumar Sethia v. Manju Bothra

Calcutta HC10 Mar 2026CRR/768/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Speedy trial and delay in Section 138 NI Act cheque-dishonour complaint; eighteen consecutive adjournments by opposite party; six-month disposal mandate under S.143(3) NI Act; direction to 15th Metropolitan Magistrate, Kolkata; revision under Sections 528-529 BNSS 2023; expeditious disposal; restraint on adjournments; Complaint Case No. CS 62711 of 2018; Raj Kumar Sethia; Partha Sarathi Chatterjee, J.; order dated 10.03.2026.

What did the court decide?

Direction upon the Court of the learned 15th Metropolitan Magistrate at Kolkata to conclude the trial of Complaint Case No. CS 62711 of 2018 expeditiously, without granting unnecessary adjournments to either party, preferably within six months from the next date of hearing, i.e., 18.03.2026. ¶16

Raj Kumar Sethia Vs Manju Bothra — Cheque Dishonour | Calcutta HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶16

Issue for consideration

Whether the revisional application should be disposed of with a direction for expeditious disposal of Complaint Case No. CS 62711 of 2018 (a Section 138 NI Act complaint pending since 10.07.2018 amid repeated adjournments), in light of the six-month trial mandate under sub-section (3) of Section 143 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881.

¶9

Court's answer

No useful purpose would be served by keeping the revisional application pending.

¶14

Ratio / Principle

There is a legislative mandate engrafted in sub-section (3) of Section 143 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 requiring that the trial of such cases be concluded within six months from the date of filing of the complaint.

¶15

Key takeaways

The revisional application is disposed of with a direction upon the Court of the learned 15th Metropolitan Magistrate at Kolkata to make a sincere endeavour to conclude the trial of Complaint Case No. CS 62711 of 2018 as expeditiously as possible, without granting unnecessary adjournments to either party.ratio¶16
The trial is to be concluded preferably within a period of six months from the next date of hearing, i.e., 18.03.2026.ratio¶18

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Revisional application (CRR 768 of 2026) under Sections 528 and 529 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 by complainant Raj Kumar Sethia seeking expeditious disposal of Complaint Case No. CS 62711 of 2018 - a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 filed on 10.07.2018 before the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Kolkata and transferred to the 15th Metropolitan Magistrate, Kolkata - where the complainant had been examined but cross-examination had neither commenced nor concluded over four years as the opposite party sought adjournments on almost eighteen consecutive occasions. Noting the legislative mandate in sub-section (3) of Section 143 NI Act for conclusion of trial within six months of filing, the Court disposed of the revision with a direction to the trial court to conclude the trial expeditiously without granting unnecessary adjournments to either party, preferably within six months from the next date of hearing, i.e., 18.03.2026.

¶1

10.03.2026 Court No.446 Item No. ADSL 4 Avijit Mitra

¶2

CRR 768 of 2026

¶3

In Re:- An application under sections 528 and 529 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023;

¶4

And

¶5

In Re: Raj Kumar Sethia

¶6

…Petitioner

¶7

Mr. Pushan Kar, Mr. Sagnik Majumdar, Mr. Anirban Dutta, Ms. Anyapurba Banerji

¶8

…. for the petitioner

¶9

Mr. Dutta, learned advocate appearing for the petitioner, submits that the present revisional application has been filed with an innocuous prayer for a direction for the expeditious disposal of Complaint Case No. CS 62711 of 2018, which is pending before the Court of the learned 15th Judicial Magistrate at Kolkata.

¶10

He submits that following the dishonour of a cheque issued by the opposite party in discharge of a liability, the petitioner was compelled to file a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 before the Court of the learned Chief Metropolitan Magistrate at Kolkata on 10th July, 2018, which was registered as Complaint Case No. CS 62711 of 2018. Subsequently, the said case was transferred to the Court of the learned 15th Metropolitan Magistrate at Kolkata for trial.

¶11

He contends that on as many as eighteen occasions the accused persons have sought consecutive adjournments and, as a

¶12

¶13

result, there has been no substantial progress in the proceedings for almost four years. Referring to sub-section (3) of Section 143 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, he submits that there is a legislative mandate that the trial of such a case shall be concluded within six months from the date of filing of the complaint. He accordingly prays for a direction upon the learned court below to dispose of the case expeditiously.

¶14

Having heard the learned advocate appearing for the petitioner and upon perusal of the materials on record, I am of the view that no useful purpose would be served by keeping the revisional application pending.

¶15

The certified copy of the order sheet indicates that the complaint was filed way back on 10.07.2018 and that the examination of the complainant has already been completed. However, the crossexamination of the complainant has neither commenced nor been concluded over the last four years, as the opposite party has sought adjournments on almost eighteen consecutive occasions. It is needless to mention that there is a legislative mandate engrafted in sub-section (3) of Section 143 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 requiring that the trial of such cases be concluded within six months from the date of filing of the complaint.

¶16

In view of the above, the revisional application is disposed of with a direction upon the Court of the learned 15th Metropolitan Magistrate at Kolkata to make a sincere endeavour to conclude the trial of Complaint Case No. CS 62711 of 2018 as expeditiously as possible, without granting unnecessary adjournments to either of the

¶17

¶18

parties, preferably within a period of six months from the next date of hearing, i.e., 18.03.2026.

¶19

Urgent photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, be supplied to the parties, upon compliance of all requisite formalities.

¶20

(Partha Sarathi Chatterjee, J.)

Raj Kumar Sethia v. Manju Bothra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Raj Kumar Sethia v. Manju Bothra

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Haradhan Das Vs Saikat Sircar

Pragati Bose Vs Siddhartha Majumdar Chairman West Bengal Central Svchool Service Commission and Anr.

Tapan Kumar Saha and Ors. Vs Damodar Valley Corporation and Ors.

Bhaskar Adhikari Vs Bank of India & Ors.

Uday Singh and Ors. Vs S.Suresh Kumar Chairman D.V.C and Ors.

Amulya Ratan Roy Vs Union of India and Ors.