In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh ...... Criminal Misc. No.M-9535 of 2009 ..... Date of decision:2.4.2009 Surinder .....Petitioner v. State of Haryana .....Respondent .... Present: Mr. Varinder Singh Rana, Advocate for the petitioner. ..... S.S. Saron, J. This petition under Section 407 Cr.P.C. read with Section 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed for setting aside the order dated 25.3.2009 (Annexure-P.2) seeking transfer of the case from the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Hisar under Section 302 IPC to any other Court of law. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that he received the present case from the petitioner by post through Jail on 30.3.2009. However, after 30.3.2009 only three days have lapsed but he is unable to show the postal cover in which the case was received. It is submitted that he has torn the same. In any case, it is submitted that the petitioner submitted an application (Annexure-P.1) to the Sessions Judge at Hisar inter alia complaining that the applicant Bhal Singh alias Sonu and Surinder son of Kamal Singh had made an oral prayer before the Court of Additional Sessions Judge when the case was fixed on 26.2.2009 that they were in custody for the last three-four years and no decision in the case has given. On this, the Court got annoyed and told them that he could get Cr. Misc. No.M-9535/2009 [2] decision from any where but he would convict them. Due to the said behaviour of the Court, it has been submitted that the petitioners apprehended that the case would not be heard impartially. Therefore, they expressed that they had no faith in the Court of Additional Sessions Judge. It was requested vide application (Annexure-P.1) that the case be transferred from the said Court. According to the learned counsel on the said application (Annexure-P.1), the learned Sessions Judge, Hisar passed the order dated 25.3.2009 (Annexure-P.2). The learned Sessions Judge perused the file of the learned trial Court and found that the accused were represented by Mr. P.C. Mittal, Advocate in the main case. The application it was observed seemed to be a device by anybody, who is concerned with the case and simply by saying that the Court has not treated them well and so they have lost faith, was no ground to withdraw the case. The case was of the year 2005 and it seemed that with a view to delay the proceedings, the application had been filed. Accordingly, the application was dismissed. A perusal of the said order dated 25.3.2009 would show that the case had been instituted on 25.3.2009. It is not recorded in the said order that the application had been received through Jail. Rather, Mr. Sudhir Sindhu, Advocate had appeared for the applicants. Therefore, the counsel for the petitioner is not clear as to whether the order dated 25.3.2009 (Annexure-P.2) has been passed on the application (Annexure- P.1) or on some other application was filed through Mr. Sudhir Sindhu, Advocate. During the course of hearing, learned counsel has also submitted that the case is fixed before the trial Court on 11.4.2009 for Cr. Misc. No.M-9535/2009 [3] arguments. The present application is lacking in material particulars. The primary grievance of the accused is that the case should be heard expeditiously. Therefore, at this stage on the basis of material which has been placed, which even otherwise are not supported by any affidavit and even the counsel has not been able to show his full satisfaction with regard to the same, it would be absolutely inappropriate to order the transfer of the case . Accordingly, the criminal miscellaneous petition is dismissed. April 2, 2009. (S.S. Saron) Judge *hsp*