Crl.Misc.No.6453 of 2012 in Crl.Misc.No.M-1115 of 2011. 1 In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh. Crl.Misc.No.6453 of 2012 in Crl.Misc.No.M-1115 of 2011. Date of Decision:- 01.02.2012. Anil Sandhir Petitioner. Versus State of Punjab and others Respondents. CORAM : HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE NARESH KUMAR SANGHI. Present: - By Post. NARESH KUMAR SANGHI,J. This case has been taken up on the request of learned Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Rajpura for extension of time in disposal of a Criminal case titled “ State Vs. Deepak Kumar” FIR No. 172 dated 23.07.2007, under Sections 419, 420, 465, 471, 120B, IPC, Police Station Rajpura. On 07.05.2011, this court had passed the following order:- “ This petition has been filed under Sections 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure praying for issuance of direction for expeditious conclusion of trial of case arising out of FIR No. 172 dated 23.7.2007, Police Station Rajpura, under Setions 170, 419, 420, 120-B, I.P.C. Crl.Misc.No.6453 of 2012 in Crl.Misc.No.M-1115 of 2011. 2 In brief the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner is a government official. The future prospects in service including promotion of the petitioner, have been blocked because of pendency of trial. It has been contended that on vague allegations, the petitioner has been implicated under Section 120-B, IPC. It has also been brought out that although FIR was lodged in the year 2007 and challan was filed on 17.11.2007, yet till date, not a single witness has been examined by the prosecution. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent has not been able to dispute the fact that not a single witness has been examined till date. The trial cannot be kept pending indefinitely and particularly at the whims of the prosecution. Civil rights of the petitioner are also involved as his service prospects are being put in jeo-pardy. Considering the totality of facts and circumstances of the case, it is directed that all efforts should be made by the trial court to conclude the trial by 2nd week of February. SSP, Patiala is directed to ensure that the prosecution witnesses are produced for examination Crl.Misc.No.6453 of 2012 in Crl.Misc.No.M-1115 of 2011. 3 before the trial court.” The trial could not be concluded on account of reasons mentioned in the letter sent to this court. Having regard to the facts and circumstances explained, the learned trial court is directed to conclude the trial by 15th May, 2012. Disposed of. (NARESH KUMAR SANGHI) JUDGE 01.02.2012 Anoop