Cr.Misc. M 37663 of 2010 1 IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYNA AT CHANDIGARH. Cr.Misc. M 37663 of 2010 Date of decision:22.12.2010 Jagdish Kumar Dhamija Petitioner vs. State of Punjab and another Respondent Present: Mr. Amit Sharma, Advocate. M.M.S.BEDI,J. The petitioner seeks quashing of private complaint, filed by respondent No.2 u/s 323/506 IPC and u/s 3 (i)(x) of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes Prevention of Atrocities Act ( for short ' the Act'), 1989 inter alia on the ground (i) no offence is made out under the Act as the petitioner had neither any intention to insult or intimidate a member of Scheduled caste nor any such action has taken place in public view: (ii) there is clear mala fide apparent on the record for launching prosecution as husband of the complainant is an accused in proceedings u/s 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, the petitioner having given a loan to him and the money having not been returned by her husband; (iii) a similar complaint filed by the complainant to the police was found to be false, prima facie indicating that the launching of prosecution by way of private complaint is an abuse of process of the court. Prima facie the petitioner, who claims himself to be a financier seems to have been involved in the case. The petitioner appears to have a plausible defence. A perusal of the interim orders, passed by the summoning court and the trial court reflect the callous attitude of Cr.Misc. M 37663 of 2010 2 respondent No.2 to produce the prosecution witnesses. The petitioner has been facing the agony of trial for the last about 4 years. Though the petitioner has got good defence in his favour but in view of the fact that the petition for quashing has been filed after a lapse of 3/ 4 years when some evidence has already been produced, it will not be appropriate to adjudicate upon merits as it would tantamount to appreciate the evidence at an intermediate stage. It is a fit case where in order to cut short the agony the petitioner, a direction should be issued for expeditious disposal of the complaint. This petition is disposed of with a direction to the trial court to complete the trial within a period of six months by adopting the procedure under the provisions of Section 309 Cr.P.C. by giving a fair opportunity to the petitioner to produce his defence. In case the trial court is of the opinion that respondent No.2- complainant is adopting an evasive approach to delay the proceedings, it will be open to the trial court to close the evidence and proceed in accordance with law. It is directed that in case an application for exemption from personal appearance is filed by the petitioner, taking into consideration the protracted trial faced by him, the application will be allowed by the trial court subject to any conditions imposed upon the petitioner. December 22 ,2010 ( M.M.S.BEDI ) TSM JUDGE