IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CRM M-10276 of 2010 (O&M) Date of Decision:3.5.2011 Sukhdev Singh .... Petitioner Versus State of Punjab and another .... Respondents CORAM: Hon'ble Ms. Justice Nirmaljit Kaur Present: Mr. S.S. Sidhu, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. K.S. Pannu, D.A.G. Punjab. Mr. Ashish Grover, Advocate for respondent No.2. **** 1.Whether Reporters of Local Newspapers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2.To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3.Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? NIRMALJIT KAUR, J.(Oral) The present petition has been filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing of the Criminal Complaint vide file No.4 titled as Buta Singh versus Shamsher Singh and orders dated 11.1.2002 (P- 1) and the summoning order dated 26.8.2004 (P-2) passed in the aforementioned complaint. It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the allegations relates to the year 1998. Whereas complaint was filed in the year 2002 and summoning order was passed on 26.8.2004. Still, no prosecution witness was examined. The petitioner, therefore, was forced to file Criminal Misc. No.51027-M of 2007 (P-4) before the High Court. The said petition was disposed of vide order dated 13.11.2007 with a direction to the trial Court to dispose of the matter as expeditiously as possible preferably within a period of one year. In spite of the same, the matter is still pending. It CRM M-10276 of 2010 (O&M) -2- is further contended that meanwhile an application under Section 197 of the Cr.P.C. was moved by the petitioner. The same was kept pending for consideration for about ½ year on account of the adjournments sought by the respondent-complainant. Reliance has been placed on the judgment of Hon'ble the Supreme Court rendered in the case of Pankaj Kumar v. State of Maharashtra and others 2008 (4) R.C.R. (Criminal) 890 to substantiate the argument that in case the delay is not attributed to the accused, the proceedings should be quashed. It is further contended that the petitioner being a public servant, he is discharging his duty. As such, criminal proceedings could not have been initiated against him in violation of Section 197 of Cr.P.C. On the other, learned counsel for the respondent- complainant submitted that the pre-charge evidence has since concluded and now the matter is pending for framing of charges. In view of the above, without going into the merits of the case and taking into account the statement made by learned counsel for the respondent-complainant that in case the charges are framed, the entire prosecution evidence will be completed within a period of 3 months, the present petition is disposed of with the following directions. (a) The trial Court shall pass the final order with respect to the charges on the date fixed before it. In case no charges are framed and the petitioner is discharged, the petitioner shall obviously have no grievance but in case the same are framed, respondent- CRM M-10276 of 2010 (O&M) -3- complainant shall complete his entire prosecution evidence within 3 months. No further opportunity shall be granted. (b) Thereafter, the petitioner shall complete his defence evidence as expeditiously as possible within a period of one month. (c) The trial Court shall finally decide the matter within 6 months from the date fixed before it. Taking into account that the petitioner is facing trial since the year 2002 without the same making headway, his personal appearance is exempted before the trial Court except as and when required. 3.5.2011 ( NIRMALJIT KAUR ) rajeev JUDGE