Crl. Misc. No.M-4322 of 2008 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Decided on: October 25, 2010. Crl. Misc. No.M-4322 of 2008. Baljit Singh and another .. Petitioners VERSUS State of Punjab .. Respondent * * * CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE M.M.S.BEDI * * * PRESENT Dr.Anmol Rattan Sidhu, Sr., Advocate, with Mr.R.K.Chugh, Advocate, for the petitioners. Mr.Abhishek Chautala, AAG., Punjab. Mr.Adarsh Jain, Advocate, for the complainant. M.M.S. BEDI, J (ORAL). The petitioners on an earlier occasion had approached this Court for quashing of the FIR. The said petition was dismissed vide order Annexure P-2, dated 09.12.1999. Thereafter the charges were framed against the petitioners. A petition for quashing of charges was also filed, which was dismissed by the revisional Court i.e., the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, . . . 1 Crl. Misc. No.M-4322 of 2008 Bathinda, on 20.07.2000. The said order was set aside by this Court on 13.10.2001. This petition has again been filed invoking the inherent jurisdiction of this Court under Section 482 Cr.P.C., for quashing of charge sheet dated 13.11.1998, inter alia, on the ground that pertaining to the same incident dated 15.06.1998, a private complaint had been filed by petitioner No.2 Jasdeep Singh, against Gurpal Singh, Varinder Singh, Ajaib Singh and Harnek Singh. The said complaint under Sections 447 & 506/34 IPC, was dismissed by the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Bathinda, vide order dated 12.12.2005. Counsel for the petitioners has contended that adopting the principle of parity, the charges framed against the petitioners vide order dated 13.11.1998, in view of their status being co-sharers of the property, deserves to be quashed. After hearing the counsel for the petitioners and counsel for the complainant as well as the State counsel, in the interest of justice, I deem it appropriate to dispose of this petition for quashing of FIR with a direction to the trial Court to expeditiously dispose of the trial with liberty to the petitioners to raise all the pleas of defence which have been taken up in this petition and argued by the counsel as the FIR pertains to the year 1998 and charges were framed on 13.11.1998. It is contrary to the principles of Article 21 of the Constitution of India to prolong the trial for such a long period following the ratio of the judgment in Abdul Rahim Vs. R.S.Malik . . . 2 Crl. Misc. No.M-4322 of 2008 and others, 1992 (1) SCC, 225, laying down that accused has got a right of speedy trial under Section 309 of the Criminal Procedure Code and in case of inordinate delay in conclusion of the proceedings, the High Court has got discretion under Section 482 Cr.P.C., either to quash the proceedings or to fix time limit for concluding the proceedings. As the trial is pending since 1998 and only two prosecution witnesses remain to be examined, this petition is disposed of with direction that the trial Court will conclude the trial within a period of 6 months after the receipt of a copy of this order. The trial Court will give two more months to the prosecution to produce all the witnesses and thereafter give sufficient opportunity to the accused to produce their defence and decide the case as directed hereinabove. (M.M.S.BEDI) JUDGE October 25, 2010. rka . . . 3